Full Version: Affirmative Action
QUOTE
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...firm/affirm.htm
An increasingly assertive opposition movement argues that the battle to guarantee equal rights for all citizens has been fought and won – and that favoring members of one group over another simply goes against the American grain.
But defenders of affirmative action say that the playing field is not level yet – and that granting modest advantages to minorities and women is more than fair, given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men.
An increasingly assertive opposition movement argues that the battle to guarantee equal rights for all citizens has been fought and won – and that favoring members of one group over another simply goes against the American grain.
But defenders of affirmative action say that the playing field is not level yet – and that granting modest advantages to minorities and women is more than fair, given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men.
Topic for debate 1: Why do minorities (this includes women) still earn less money than men on average and why are minorities still not on a par with whites in political and business power positions?
Topic for Debate 2: Should we keep affirmative action because minorities aren't equally represented in these positions?
1: My guess is a combination of factors (in no particular order):
Some women leave careers for childbirth
Some women choose less of a career for child rearing
Some women are not as aggressive in salary negotiation
Some employers don't believe women are as worthy of hire (see 1 & 2)
The two political parties in this country tend toward the mainstream, which is white & male
Accumulated & inherited wealth counts for alot, and has a strong effect on education and upbringing. Whites had 200+ year head start.
last but not least, bigotry & chauvinism.
2. No
I've seen plenty of claims that AA has typically benefitted white females more than any other protected group. I have formed no opinion on this.
I don't think it works, enforcing AA at the the time of hire or matriculation is too late. It also has minimal effect on private industry.
My alternative option is to promote economic justice by taxing land wealth, and redistributing the revenues as government services (education? health insurance?) and dividend, while reducing taxes on income and investment, and ending government-granted monopolies and discouraging financial speculation. This would create a very efficient free market economic machine, and a real meritocracy. Any firms who inefficiently chose workers on the basis of their race or gender (or any other means) would be penalized by market competion from other firms who chose their employees on the basis of capability.
Enroute to this point, I would retain targeted food, shelter, and primary education benefits, though I would use socioeconomic decision factors rather than fairly arbitrary racial ones.
I fear, that until you remove the option of natural childbirth from every woman, women (as a half) will lag behind men in business and politics, if merely because some women will choose to give birth rather than fully pursue business and politics. It is my opinion that giving birth is more important to humankind than business or politics.
Some women leave careers for childbirth
Some women choose less of a career for child rearing
Some women are not as aggressive in salary negotiation
Some employers don't believe women are as worthy of hire (see 1 & 2)
The two political parties in this country tend toward the mainstream, which is white & male
Accumulated & inherited wealth counts for alot, and has a strong effect on education and upbringing. Whites had 200+ year head start.
last but not least, bigotry & chauvinism.
2. No
I've seen plenty of claims that AA has typically benefitted white females more than any other protected group. I have formed no opinion on this.
I don't think it works, enforcing AA at the the time of hire or matriculation is too late. It also has minimal effect on private industry.
My alternative option is to promote economic justice by taxing land wealth, and redistributing the revenues as government services (education? health insurance?) and dividend, while reducing taxes on income and investment, and ending government-granted monopolies and discouraging financial speculation. This would create a very efficient free market economic machine, and a real meritocracy. Any firms who inefficiently chose workers on the basis of their race or gender (or any other means) would be penalized by market competion from other firms who chose their employees on the basis of capability.
Enroute to this point, I would retain targeted food, shelter, and primary education benefits, though I would use socioeconomic decision factors rather than fairly arbitrary racial ones.
I fear, that until you remove the option of natural childbirth from every woman, women (as a half) will lag behind men in business and politics, if merely because some women will choose to give birth rather than fully pursue business and politics. It is my opinion that giving birth is more important to humankind than business or politics.
I am not saying that there are no inequities in the world of work, but some of the inequities are manufactured.
On 3 occasions in my working career, I witnessed how pay issues can be manipulated in a large company. At the first one, it was clear that the "consultant" had no idea of the different levels of education required or complexity involved in certain jobs. A "data tech" who reduced collected data was considered the same as the real tech who could install, align, calibrate, and repair the electronic systems used to collect the data. In our shop, the data tech was a female, and got a raise. But they did make her take ONE basic electronics course on her own time. Later they hired a young man fresh from the Air Force, very sharp technician. After about 6 months of more than proving his worth, he found out that he was getting less than the data tech. He was irate, to say the least. They bumped him up 2 paygrades, but he ended up quitting anyway.
Same place, different study, they attempted to equate secretaries with technicians.
Third situation, at a Nuclear Power Plant, a consulting company determined that Metrology Techs should get $300 less per month than Instrument and Control Techs. The person doing the study had no idea what a Metrology Tech is, and admitted it when we protested.
I called every commercial Nuclear Power Plant that had its own Metrology lab and did my own survey. Turned out that Metrologists got the same, if not more, than the Instrument/Control techs. Our shop was about 20% female, and they were paid same as the men. It took almost 2 years to convince them, and finally they relented and we got the same paygrade, but somehow it took several more years for the actual pay to catch up.
In both cases, the employees of the consultant company would wander around and ask us what we do. Have you ever tried to explain your technical job in 10 minutes or less to someone with little or no technical or engineering background?
Most recently, at the last place I worked, I have seen considerable effort towards balancing the workforce by putting minorities and females into the lower layers of management. I know one Hispanic male and one Asian female who refused promotions, essentially said they trained to be engineers, not pawns of upper management.
The market should determine our salaries, not some lame effort at social engineering. And studies should not be done by consulting companies who hire idiots off the street.
On 3 occasions in my working career, I witnessed how pay issues can be manipulated in a large company. At the first one, it was clear that the "consultant" had no idea of the different levels of education required or complexity involved in certain jobs. A "data tech" who reduced collected data was considered the same as the real tech who could install, align, calibrate, and repair the electronic systems used to collect the data. In our shop, the data tech was a female, and got a raise. But they did make her take ONE basic electronics course on her own time. Later they hired a young man fresh from the Air Force, very sharp technician. After about 6 months of more than proving his worth, he found out that he was getting less than the data tech. He was irate, to say the least. They bumped him up 2 paygrades, but he ended up quitting anyway.
Same place, different study, they attempted to equate secretaries with technicians.
Third situation, at a Nuclear Power Plant, a consulting company determined that Metrology Techs should get $300 less per month than Instrument and Control Techs. The person doing the study had no idea what a Metrology Tech is, and admitted it when we protested.
I called every commercial Nuclear Power Plant that had its own Metrology lab and did my own survey. Turned out that Metrologists got the same, if not more, than the Instrument/Control techs. Our shop was about 20% female, and they were paid same as the men. It took almost 2 years to convince them, and finally they relented and we got the same paygrade, but somehow it took several more years for the actual pay to catch up.
In both cases, the employees of the consultant company would wander around and ask us what we do. Have you ever tried to explain your technical job in 10 minutes or less to someone with little or no technical or engineering background?
Most recently, at the last place I worked, I have seen considerable effort towards balancing the workforce by putting minorities and females into the lower layers of management. I know one Hispanic male and one Asian female who refused promotions, essentially said they trained to be engineers, not pawns of upper management.
The market should determine our salaries, not some lame effort at social engineering. And studies should not be done by consulting companies who hire idiots off the street.
Now, i'm just thinking here...
Having left the engineering / technical world for a more 'blue collar' one, I can remember some of the experiences you're talking about, Bill. Since then, I've come to the conclusion that employees of all levels should be able to unionize for collective bargaining rights, instead of individuals negotiating their own pay. If this could be done on a small Local level, without interference from national unions, said Locals could be very responsive to the needs of a smaller shop. As a side note, I believe in the right to work, where you are not required to join the union and pay dues, but are required to pay a maintenance fee for the negotiation of the contract you must abide by.
Having left the engineering / technical world for a more 'blue collar' one, I can remember some of the experiences you're talking about, Bill. Since then, I've come to the conclusion that employees of all levels should be able to unionize for collective bargaining rights, instead of individuals negotiating their own pay. If this could be done on a small Local level, without interference from national unions, said Locals could be very responsive to the needs of a smaller shop. As a side note, I believe in the right to work, where you are not required to join the union and pay dues, but are required to pay a maintenance fee for the negotiation of the contract you must abide by.
This issue is very politicized and debate on it tends to negative and divisive. I don’t think it needs to be.
Should we keep affirmative action?
If one takes affirmative action to mean that, if one takes a random sample of people in a certain job, it should reflect the demographic characteristics of the general population, then no, we should not keep affirmative action. That is, I do not think quotas are fair or beneficial. Certain occupations may be better executed by a certain demographic group. Tall black men, for example, are over-represented in professional basketball. What good would it do to ensure the NBA is merely a sample of our population, a foot shorter and a lot whiter? Equal opportunity will never guarantee equal representation. We must do our best to insure that we choose the person best qualified for a job; in that sense “discrimination” (ie, choosing the superior of two qualified people) is appropriate. Sometimes, the make-up of an occupation may have a lot to do with the demographic itself, choosing to pursue or avoid it based on traditional roles. Women are over-represented in the nursing profession. Men are over-represented in the waste disposal industry. Likewise, the fact that certain groups are under-represented may be largely a matter of choice. Fewer men apply to nursing programs and fewer women apply to be trash collectors. Successive bottlenecks (which do not necessarily exist because of present-day racism, sexism, etc-ism) may cause a specific demographic to be under-represented also. Say blacks are 15% of the population in a certain state. Like any culture within the larger US culture, blacks as a group have a certain set of expectations, goals, opportunities, etc at this specific time in history. Nothing is there to guarantee that, since 5% of whites want to become a doctor, 5% of blacks also want to go down that path. Not everyone starts off with the same parenting or frame of reference. Maybe white families push their kids harder to master their studies in school. There are too many variables (that have nothing to do with racism or oppression) to cause one to believe that 15% of that state’s physicians should be black just because 15% of the population is black in that state. Furthermore, assume we made sure that 15% of blacks in this state became physicians when only 5% would normally have been. The 10% of whites displaced, who were more qualified (because of whatever life circumstances), are not in the healthcare system, and a large number of less qualified blacks are there. Healthcare suffers in this example. Basketball would suffer in an earlier example. I think we need to question the thinking that affirmative action in the form of quotas is inherently good when that is not necessarily the case. Most people agree, however, that race or sex etc itself should not be a factor that enhances or detracts from a qualified person’s marketability.
Why do minorities earn less money? Why do women earn less money?
This is another question entirely, and it is an important question to answer. I suspect that negative cultural factors (eg, racism) play a more significant role here than in the previous question.
Should we keep affirmative action?
If one takes affirmative action to mean that, if one takes a random sample of people in a certain job, it should reflect the demographic characteristics of the general population, then no, we should not keep affirmative action. That is, I do not think quotas are fair or beneficial. Certain occupations may be better executed by a certain demographic group. Tall black men, for example, are over-represented in professional basketball. What good would it do to ensure the NBA is merely a sample of our population, a foot shorter and a lot whiter? Equal opportunity will never guarantee equal representation. We must do our best to insure that we choose the person best qualified for a job; in that sense “discrimination” (ie, choosing the superior of two qualified people) is appropriate. Sometimes, the make-up of an occupation may have a lot to do with the demographic itself, choosing to pursue or avoid it based on traditional roles. Women are over-represented in the nursing profession. Men are over-represented in the waste disposal industry. Likewise, the fact that certain groups are under-represented may be largely a matter of choice. Fewer men apply to nursing programs and fewer women apply to be trash collectors. Successive bottlenecks (which do not necessarily exist because of present-day racism, sexism, etc-ism) may cause a specific demographic to be under-represented also. Say blacks are 15% of the population in a certain state. Like any culture within the larger US culture, blacks as a group have a certain set of expectations, goals, opportunities, etc at this specific time in history. Nothing is there to guarantee that, since 5% of whites want to become a doctor, 5% of blacks also want to go down that path. Not everyone starts off with the same parenting or frame of reference. Maybe white families push their kids harder to master their studies in school. There are too many variables (that have nothing to do with racism or oppression) to cause one to believe that 15% of that state’s physicians should be black just because 15% of the population is black in that state. Furthermore, assume we made sure that 15% of blacks in this state became physicians when only 5% would normally have been. The 10% of whites displaced, who were more qualified (because of whatever life circumstances), are not in the healthcare system, and a large number of less qualified blacks are there. Healthcare suffers in this example. Basketball would suffer in an earlier example. I think we need to question the thinking that affirmative action in the form of quotas is inherently good when that is not necessarily the case. Most people agree, however, that race or sex etc itself should not be a factor that enhances or detracts from a qualified person’s marketability.
Why do minorities earn less money? Why do women earn less money?
This is another question entirely, and it is an important question to answer. I suspect that negative cultural factors (eg, racism) play a more significant role here than in the previous question.
My problem is that, while old AA policies were intended to act as economic, legal and political equalizers, they specifically favor women and minorities and disfavored white men.
Discrimination is the same no matter which sex or race has the advantage. While white men have traditionally dominated the economy, courtrooms and congresses, today we see the exact opposite case everywhere- perhaps as the result of the old AA policies. But, today, the same sex and race based AA policies only act as state sanctioned payback rather than as economic equalizers.
It is simply not possible to legislate social equality in favor of a particular sex or race since the situation differs from place to place and over time. The effects of discrimination should be measured impartially and corrected on a case by case basis with sex and race neutral policies.
Discrimination is the same no matter which sex or race has the advantage. While white men have traditionally dominated the economy, courtrooms and congresses, today we see the exact opposite case everywhere- perhaps as the result of the old AA policies. But, today, the same sex and race based AA policies only act as state sanctioned payback rather than as economic equalizers.
It is simply not possible to legislate social equality in favor of a particular sex or race since the situation differs from place to place and over time. The effects of discrimination should be measured impartially and corrected on a case by case basis with sex and race neutral policies.
In real estate- we have a running joke - "there is only one group that IS NOT a minority, and that is white men, and most of us are married to a minority" LOL- it all has to do with low interest loans and grants- Alot of white guys out there using thier wives "minority status" as a jump off to low interest real estate investment. And whether a minority is a woman, or a black, or a black woman, all minorities have equal footing in the funding. The only poeple that DON"T qualify is white men, very interesting- doesn't bother me, but I do find it amusing sometimes 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.