Corporations support Affirmative Action

[Happy Monkey]

The mantra against affirmative action is "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome".

But if you don't get equality in outcome, then there are two choices:
1) There was not equality in opportunity
2) One group is inherently inferior

I don't believe 2), so I'll support affirmative action until we've had a few generations of equality in outcome.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The mantra against affirmative action is "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome".

But if you don't get equality in outcome, then there are two choices:
1) There was not equality in opportunity
2) One group is inherently inferior

I don't believe 2), so I'll support affirmative action until we've had a few generations of equality in outcome.

a
fucking
MEN.

sing it.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The mantra against affirmative action is "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome".

But if you don't get equality in outcome, then there are two choices:
1) There was not equality in opportunity
2) One group is inherently inferior

I don't believe 2), so I'll support affirmative action until we've had a few generations of equality in outcome.

I agree with your conclusion and your logic. Well stated.

A question, please. How would you be able to judge "equality of outcome"? By comparable representation in a given sector, comparable to the general population? How broad or narrow do you think these measurements should be made? What about areas where the representation was already comparable? Would you consider eliminating such requirements? Perhaps after some generations, eh?

I don't know what all my prejudices are. I know some of them, but I don't know what subconscious factors affect my decisions. I think making strict quotas a means of enforcing acceptable ratios is wrong-headed, just as I've railed against other zero-tolerance, zero-judgement, zero-intelligence policies.

I think we as a society are moving in the right direction toward more tolerance and less prejudice, but it is a lesson that is learned gradually, and must be learned anew by each passing generation. The progress is s-l-o-w.

[Perry Winkle]

We are hiring at work. We would love more diversity. Regardless of the law we feel there's a great deal to gain from having diverse perspective.

My department is fully remote, so we will hire the right person no matter where they live in a range of timezones. But we don't get any applicants other than white males.

Either we are doing something to make ourselves unappealing to women and non-whites or there just aren't enough candidates demographically that we end up seeing them.

I don't know what my point is. Just something that was bugging me today and along the lines of Affirmative Action.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

Either we are doing something to make ourselves unappealing to women and non-whites or there just aren't enough candidates demographically that we end up seeing them.

You would only be one cog in a big system that creates the problem. The overt and completely unnoticed bias is not limited to coding or even jobs.

How do I find more honest automobile dealers? I watch how they treat the women. The dealers that are most biased, in general, also treat women as ignorant. Sometimes literally lie to women because "women are not smart enough". Their bias; not my conclusion.

The bias is obvious and extreme in some dealerships. And they probably have no idea they are doing it.

Does racism (emotion) exist elsewhere? We literally called them racist. Even when facts before us demonstrated the race accusation was incorrect, we still had that very strong need to defeat the racists. Winning six out of seven matches. I, at that time, did not realize the bias I had invented inside myself and others. Biases created by emotions are deep, unacknowledged, and prevalent. It is also why advertising works.

Why, for example, do so many plug computers into surge protectors that do not even do protection? Or why so many smoke cigarettes when every fact says it is bad, foolish, ignorant, and a sign of lower intelligence? Biases (decisions based in emotions) are why Presidential debate saw who looked and sounded better (an emotion) rather than who really had a better grasp of facts and solutions (Nixon vs Kennedy; Obama vs Romney).

Anyone who denies these emotional (the other word for racism) biases exist must be in denial. Affirmative action is about a problem so many of us still have and do not realize it.

Science demonstrated the problem. For example, interview for stock brokers were conducted with the interviewee observed and hidden. The superior candidate (by abilities and experience) would be most often selected when hidden during the interview. The same candidates were significantly less often selected when the interview was 'face to face'. And the interviewer routinely denied he has such biases.

Affirmative action can be view two ways. First, no longer necessary because I 'feel' racism no longer exists. Second, still necessary because science demonstrates those biases still exist among so many who deny their racist (emotional) biases.

In that dealership, a vehicle owner was asked, accusingly, why she brought a car with a leaking oil filter back to this dealership. Because her mechanic saw the leaking and the dealership had done the oil change. Who was making the many accusations? A woman service rep. A bias (emotion) against woman (the customer) even exists among some women (the service rep).

Does not matter what you feel. Only quantative facts are relevant. Racist biases still widely exist.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by BigV

A question, please. How would you be able to judge "equality of outcome"? By comparable representation in a given sector, comparable to the general population?

Pretty much.

How broad or narrow do you think these measurements should be made?

I'm not sure how to indicate the breadth of the measurements.

What about areas where the representation was already comparable? Would you consider eliminating such requirements? Perhaps after some generations, eh?

Disregarding the complications of tracking this and making particular rules field by field, I would support that in theory. It would depend on how it was managed in practice.