Racial quotas for the FDNY

bpesta22 said:
Until the disparity is corrected-- until the percentage of minorities employed = their percentage in the relevant labor market.
Click to expand...
If there is an actual ability disparity between races, what is morally correct about creating equality of outcomes? African-Americans are overly represented in the NBA. Is this immoral? Should a greater recruiting effort be made to have a higher % of Caucasian? Is equality of opportunity less important than equality of outcomes?
 
Neally said:
If there is an actual ability disparity between races, what is morally correct about creating equality of outcomes? African-Americans are overly represented in the NBA. Is this immoral? Should a greater recruiting effort be made to have a higher % of Caucasian? Is equality of opportunity less important than equality of outcomes?
Click to expand...

No; the vast majority of americans do not depend on the nba for a living nor are they being paid for exceptional or extra-ordinary abilities. Earning a living wage by opening up opportunities to dis-advantaged people (whatever the cause of the dis-advantage) seems reasonable but less than perfect as a solution (as long as the opportunity is temporary, remedial and fair to whites).
 
Last edited:
Quite some time ago I read, about the University of Michigan, that some hispanic and black students get twenty points as opposed to the usual twelve for a perfect exam score on the admissions exam that white or asian students recieve.
But there are other forms of similar bias if you will in the system of course. For example, there are other points awarded, automatically, to students from elite high schools (10 points), students from underrepresented counties in Michigan (6 points) and students that have had parents attending the University of Michigan (4 points). Students who are not elligble to recieve the 20 points for being of underrepresented minority (hispanic and black students) but are of poor socio-economic dwelling, recieves 20 points for being poor.

Then we have different forms of nepotism in this context that 'helps out', like being the child of a professor, faculty member or sponsor/donor, relatives of alumnis' etc.
 
WhiteLion said:
Quite some time ago I read, about the University of Michigan, that some hispanic and black students get twenty points as opposed to the usual twelve for a perfect exam score on the admissions exam that white or asian students recieve.
But there are other forms of similar bias if you will in the system of course. For example, there are other points awarded, automatically, to students from elite high schools (10 points), students from underrepresented counties in Michigan (6 points) and students that have had parents attending the University of Michigan (4 points). Students who are not elligble to recieve the 20 points for being of underrepresented minority (hispanic and black students) but are of poor socio-economic dwelling, recieves 20 points for being poor.

Then we have different forms of nepotism in this context that 'helps out', like being the child of a professor, faculty member or sponsor/donor, relatives of alumnis' etc.
Click to expand...

Here's the news report on the two cases:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/
 
bpesta22 said:
Earning a living wage by opening up opportunities to dis-advantaged people (whatever the cause of the dis-advantage) seems reasonable but less than perfect as a solution (as long as the opportunity is temporary, remedial and fair to whites).
Click to expand...
And the opportunities are open to everyone. It's against the law to restrict them.
 
Neally said:
And the opportunities are open to everyone. It's against the law to restrict them.
Click to expand...

Not according to SCOTUS. I do agree that AA is race discrimination. But, it's legal and at least in my opinion justified til we find a permanent remedy to racial imbalances.
 
Slimething said:
So, let's make it a hypothetical case. Population A controls Population B for sufficient generations that B is reduced to an illiterate, disenfranchised sector. Suddenly, B is allowed to compete with A but A denies B the traditional pathways to an equal footing in business.

What would you do other than to establish a temporary program of controlled discrimination against A to bring B up to par?
Click to expand...

Don't allow A to deny B the traditional pathways to an equal footing in business.
 
bpesta22 said:
I do agree that AA is race discrimination. But, it's legal and at least in my opinion justified til we find a permanent remedy to racial imbalances.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm trying to understand, why you think that it's morally important to have equality in outcomes. You've acknowledged that racial imbalances in some professions don't bother you, yet you want to see them removed in others. Why?
 
Neally said:
This is what I'm trying to understand, why you think that it's morally important to have equality in outcomes. You've acknowledged that racial imbalances in some professions don't bother you, yet you want to see them removed in others. Why?
Click to expand...

Not equal outcomes; equal opportunities.

I am focusing more on people and less on jobs. I think a country as wealthy as the USA owes all its citizens some minimum level of well-being. Something like an opportunity at a job with a living wage and basic needs met. I do not think everyone deserves a great job or to be rich or to live off the rich.

High paying professions, to me, are not the point. It's the living wage thing; and using race as one factor in an employment decision when a minority race is under-represented seems perfectly fair to me, and something we should do til science corrects the problem.

eta I'm less worried about under or over representation is some dream job like NBA star. I am less worried about the glass ceiling than the stone floor.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
Don't allow A to deny B the traditional pathways to an equal footing in business.
Click to expand...

Thanks, AvalonXQ. That would be an ideal answer. However, in this case study, A found a way to prevent B from fully paricipating for decades. Given that, how would you right the situation?
 
bpesta22 said:
High paying professions, to me, are not the point. It's the living wage thing; and using race as one factor in an employment decision when a minority race is under-represented seems perfectly fair to me
Click to expand...

Not to me. I've asked the question more than one now but got no answer: can you correct an unjustice with another unjustice ?
 
Slimething said:
Thanks, AvalonXQ. That would be an ideal answer. However, in this case study, A found a way to prevent B from fully paricipating for decades. Given that, how would you right the situation?
Click to expand...

Do we know how A found a way to prevent B from fully participating? Can we stop A from doing this?
 
Belz... said:
Not to me. I've asked the question more than one now but got no answer: can you correct an unjustice with another unjustice ?
Click to expand...

I don't see justice/injustice as a dichotomy but a continuum. AA is on it's face disparate treatment based on race-- an unlawful employment practice until the SC said it was ok. You should read the opinion and dissenting in Steelworkers V. Weber. It's fascinating and well worth the read for intelligent arguments pro and con.

This is one of those topics where reasonable people disagree without being unreasonable re the other side's point of view. It's like the death penalty or gun ownership rights.

I think the fact that it's non-specific discrimination against a group of whites-- versus an individual white person-- that makes it reasonably fair and tolerable until some other long term solution is discovered.

In Steelworkers, one out of every two positions had to be filled by blacks. That doesn't seem horribly wrong.

Also, I don't think the minority plight today is due entirely to discrimination, but that's another can of worms.

ETA, why the preference in Steelworkers? Because the % black holding the job was 2% while the percent black in the relevant labor market was 40%. That's massive under-representation. The AA was fair to whites on was scheduled to stop as soon as the 2% got up to 40%.

Seems entirely reasonable on paper. In practice, I dunno, but that's also another can of worms.
 
Last edited:
bpesta22 said:
I think the fact that it's non-specific discrimination against a group of whites-- versus an individual white person-- that makes it reasonably fair and tolerable until some other long term solution is discovered.
Click to expand...
So you are okay with discrimination against a group of people but not individuals within the group? I respect your knowledge of psychometric testing, but am really struggling to understand your thinking here.

In Steelworkers, one out of every two positions had to be filled by blacks. That doesn't seem horribly wrong.
Click to expand...

Unless you are one of the individual white persons that doesn't get the job.

Again, are some job opportunities not open to minorities?
 
Neally said:
So you are okay with discrimination against a group of people but not individuals within the group? I respect your knowledge of psychometric testing, but am really struggling to understand your thinking here.



Unless you are one of the individual white persons that doesn't get the job.

Again, are some job opportunities not open to minorities?
Click to expand...

I don't necc. disagree with you; I think it's a tough call / the lesser of two evils. I know as a fact if I were a minority my tenure decision would have went much more smoothly.

Until the group difference is fixed, AA will always be unfair. It's a balancing act between increasing the well-being of a group that's suffering (relatively and for whatever reason) versus restricting opportunities (somewhat) for members of the group that's relatively better off.

I think not acting is immoral. And, I can't come up with anything better now than AA (beyond devoting more scientific study to the problem; or even admitting that the sacred-cow explanation for why the problem exists is wrong).
 
AvalonXQ said:
Do we know how A found a way to prevent B from fully participating? Can we stop A from doing this?
Click to expand...


Population A controlled the routine pathways to success, which for the purposes of this discussion, I will define as attaining a stable life within the middle class. Population A denied Population B access to these conveyors by:
  • providing a poorer education system to B
  • denying career path jobs to B
  • privatizing their social venues to exclude B
  • making voting more difficult for B
  • gerrymandering districts to dilute B as a policial force
  • failing to prosecute crimes perpetrated against B
Those few mechanisms are the ones that I could think of in 2 minutes. I'm sure I missed some. A good way to enumerate them fully, if one had the time, is to look up all the anti-discrimination laws to see what they criminalize.
 
Last edited:
Slimething said:
Population A controlled the routine pathways to success, which for the purposes of this discussion, I will define as attaining a stable life within the middle class. Population A denied Population B access to these conveyors by:
  • providing a poorer education system to B
  • denying career path jobs to B
  • privatizing their social venues to exclude B
  • making voting more difficult for B
  • gerrymandering districts to dilute B as a policial force
  • failing to prosecute crimes perpetrated against B
Those few mechanisms are the ones that I could think of in 2 minutes. I'm sure I missed some. A good way to enumerate them fully, if one had the time, is to look up all the anti-discrimination laws to see what they criminalize.
Click to expand...

One of the difficulties with AA is the idea that it corrects a past history of blatant discrimination. An argument I've seen semi-lately (not sure where it's at now) is that because of AA for decades now, there is not enough past history of blatant discrimination to merit the preference.
 
bpesta22 said:
One of the difficulties with AA is the idea that it corrects a past history of blatant discrimination. An argument I've seen semi-lately (not sure where it's at now) is that because of AA for decades now, there is not enough past history of blatant discrimination to merit the preference.
Click to expand...

The very reason I asked the question earlier as to how to tell when to end AA. I saw an "illustrated" argument at the SCOTUS on C-SPAN about six months ago over this issue. A voting district in TX was asking to court to allow it to end a voting practice that cost money to ensure equal access but was now unnecessary (IIRC). They didn't win but they did draw much sympathy from some members of the court. There are tests that are applied though I can't remember them.

Sooner or later, AA will end but I can't foretell when or why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom