Antidiscrimination - how much 'protection' is ethical?

[ris]

he did say 'supposed'

 

[chcr]

True enough.

 

[Aunty Em]

wouldn't you consider non-transvestite Christian

Hmm, that's rather questionable when you consider that priests from the older religions e.g. catholic and greek orthodox, like to wander around in dresses otherwise known as "robes"...

 

[flavio]

In a racist environment affermative action works. In a non-racist environment it discriminates. It's that simple although not all inclusive. Communities are different all across America. In some places it's needed in some places it's not.

So who's going to make that decision?

While unfair many times, affirmative action and anti-discriminization laws are there because nobody has come up with a better real world plan.

 

[ris]

but it must also be taken into consideration that through the act of affirmative action the education of others reduces the need to have affirmative action. in areas where this may have occured the use of affirmative action could become an discrimination issue in reverse.

 

[Gato_Solo]

but it must also be taken into consideration that through the act of affirmative action the education of others reduces the need to have affirmative action. in areas where this may have occured the use of affirmative action could become an discrimination issue in reverse.

The biggest problem is not affirmative action in hiring. It's affirmative action in education. If you notice...the biggest fights over affirmative action have been in the secondary and post-secondary education arenas...

 

[ris]

i wouldn't have noticed - in the uk we haven't extended it through and made it as much a government enshrined act.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Basically, it means that if a person comes from an underprivileged area, they get more 'points' on their application than if someone came from a middle-class, or upper middle-class area. Since most of the people from underprivileged areas happen to be minorities, I'm sure you now get the full effect.

 

[flavio]

but it must also be taken into consideration that through the act of affirmative action the education of others reduces the need to have affirmative action. in areas where this may have occured the use of affirmative action could become an discrimination issue in reverse.

It absolutely turns into reverse discrimination many times. As time passes the need for it seems to be less as well. I don't think it's time to get rid of these laws but they could use some retooling.

 

[chcr]

As time passes the need for it seems to be less as well.

Do you really think so? I'm not so sure. I've stayed out of this discussion for the most part because while I have mixed feelings about the concept, I don't have a better answer. I think maybe the laws bear looking at with the idea of improving them, but I don't think the situation that led to them has really improved all that much. We don't have as many murders and hangings, but the quiet stuff is just as prevalent as it ever was.

 

[RD_151]

Yeah, it's still there, and its not going away anytime soon. The fact that we even have this debate in the first place demonstrates that it's still here and not going away. You can't ignore it I guess, but let's not try to make these issues stand out so much. I mean the fact that we have AA is kind of like saying that minorities aren't as qualified, and thus NEED some extra help. I think this only makes the matter worse in many cases. Indeed, it helps in some, on an individual level, but as a whole, on an aggregate level it does more damage. In the past, it may be been a 'good idea,' that too is debatable, but it doesn't seem to work the way it was intended, and you can hardly point to it's overwhelming success. It's kind of a failure if you think about it. You can't legislate change the change peoples views or personal beliefs. It's just not possible. And discrimination, of some kind or another will always exist. It always has. The problem with sterotypes is that in aggregate they tend to have merit. However, on an individual level of course they do not. This is why people discriminate based on one trait or another. It's a quick easy way to maximize your chances to choose the individuals you are looking for. It's not really that good at the individual level, but it works well for narrowing down candidates to a smaller pool. Essentially we are legislating that people use a less effective method of sorting people. Now, I'm not defending discrimination, or anything like that, I'm just pointing out why it tends to happen,and why it will always tend to happen. It's not about race, religion or sex, it's about every trait by which we can sort people. What school did you go to, what was your GPA, what was your previous background, work experience, what organizations do you belong to, etc etc. They are sorting on a number of traits and characteristics, and this sorting process is discriminating against EVERONE based on one trait or another. You can generalize certain things about a population based on various traits, and this is what we are trying to stop. We can't. Of course, when you do this you are hurting individuals, and at the individual level such traits may show no relation to the overall trend. However, firms and universites start sorting at the group level, and only finally end up at the individual level. If a company or university only considers 3.7gpa students and up, is that discrimination? What if they only consider students from top schools? Or what if they need to show community service (as so many graduate programs require)? You are discriminating in each of these case. You are discriminating based on socioeconomic status, because clearly the higher your income the more you can afford to volunteer, or the more opportunities there are to excel and get into 'the right schools' in the first place. Not too many poor or middle class families can afford to send their kids to the best prep schools. The major sorce of discrimination in society is of a socioeconomic nature, not of an ethnic nature. Minorities tend to be poorer, thus, tend to have less opportunities. There are other factors, but this is the major factor, and it affects all races equally. People seem ot over look this fact when discussing these issues. There are a lot of rich white people, and very few rich minorites, thus you are gonna find a lot more advantaged whites. It doesn't mean we are all advantaged, it just means there are a lot more whites who come from the right families, from the right background, get into the right schools, and get into the kinds of positions where they are in a position to promote people like themselves, other upper income whites with similar backgrounds to their own in most cases. Only time is gonna change this, not legislation. And maybe even time won't change it. The 'majority' already has a big lead on the minority, one that maybe even time won't overcome. I wish there was an easy answer, but there probably isn't. Every society in history has had this same structure. It seems to be a rather natural condition unfortunately. Maybe that alone strong justification for such programs, I'm not really sure. It doesn't seem to have had any major impact yet though. I'm rather indifferent on the matter. But as I've said before I only favor things in my own self interst, and this isn't such a program, so I would tend to not support it.

 

[outside looking in]

Well, I intended for this discussion to be about anti-discrimination legislation, not institutionalized discrimination legislation like AA. But, I suppose that's the whole spirit of "off topic."

 

[RD_151]

Sorry, I forgot.

I don't think a christian book store should have to hire a transvestite. I think there needs to be a 'good fit' for the employee/student too. Also, if hiriing hotties maximizes Hooters profits, I think they should be able to use that as an argument for only hiring such people while failing to hire others that don't fit the idea of a 'Hooters girl.' It's sad if a fat ugly transvestite man could file a suit against Hooters because he didn't get hired to be a 'waitress.' If that is actually a law, then I'm against it. Or at the very least, i wouldn't go to Hooters

 

[flavio]

I really doubt that Hooters is experiencing much trouble over anti-discrimination laws. There should be a certain leway involved by stating reasonable qualifications for the position. Qualifications for working at Hooters are are naturally going to have something to do with your hooters.

It's really not too different from hiring models or dancers at strip clubs.

The focus of the anti-discrimination laws should be (and hopefully is) discrimination on issues that have nothing to do with the qualifications.

 

[outside looking in]

I agree RD. The comparison between Hooter's and a Christian bookstore illustrates a point... if the Hooter's manager gets to choose what are reasonable qualifications for being a waitress there, why can't the bookstore owner choose what are reasonable qualifications for working there?

I, for one, think being a Christian would be a reasonable qualification to work at a Christian bookstore.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yeah, it's still there, and its not going away anytime soon. The fact that we even have this debate in the first place demonstrates that it's still here and not going away. You can't ignore it I guess, but let's not try to make these issues stand out so much. I mean the fact that we have AA is kind of like saying that minorities aren't as qualified, and thus NEED some extra help. I think this only makes the matter worse in many cases. Indeed, it helps in some, on an individual level, but as a whole, on an aggregate level it does more damage. In the past, it may be been a 'good idea,' that too is debatable, but it doesn't seem to work the way it was intended, and you can hardly point to it's overwhelming success. It's kind of a failure if you think about it. You can't legislate change the change peoples views or personal beliefs. It's just not possible. And discrimination, of some kind or another will always exist. It always has. The problem with sterotypes is that in aggregate they tend to have merit. However, on an individual level of course they do not. This is why people discriminate based on one trait or another. It's a quick easy way to maximize your chances to choose the individuals you are looking for. It's not really that good at the individual level, but it works well for narrowing down candidates to a smaller pool. Essentially we are legislating that people use a less effective method of sorting people. Now, I'm not defending discrimination, or anything like that, I'm just pointing out why it tends to happen,and why it will always tend to happen. It's not about race, religion or sex, it's about every trait by which we can sort people. What school did you go to, what was your GPA, what was your previous background, work experience, what organizations do you belong to, etc etc. They are sorting on a number of traits and characteristics, and this sorting process is discriminating against EVERONE based on one trait or another. You can generalize certain things about a population based on various traits, and this is what we are trying to stop. We can't. Of course, when you do this you are hurting individuals, and at the individual level such traits may show no relation to the overall trend. However, firms and universites start sorting at the group level, and only finally end up at the individual level. If a company or university only considers 3.7gpa students and up, is that discrimination? What if they only consider students from top schools? Or what if they need to show community service (as so many graduate programs require)? You are discriminating in each of these case. You are discriminating based on socioeconomic status, because clearly the higher your income the more you can afford to volunteer, or the more opportunities there are to excel and get into 'the right schools' in the first place. Not too many poor or middle class families can afford to send their kids to the best prep schools. The major sorce of discrimination in society is of a socioeconomic nature, not of an ethnic nature. Minorities tend to be poorer, thus, tend to have less opportunities. There are other factors, but this is the major factor, and it affects all races equally. People seem ot over look this fact when discussing these issues. There are a lot of rich white people, and very few rich minorites, thus you are gonna find a lot more advantaged whites. It doesn't mean we are all advantaged, it just means there are a lot more whites who come from the right families, from the right background, get into the right schools, and get into the kinds of positions where they are in a position to promote people like themselves, other upper income whites with similar backgrounds to their own in most cases. Only time is gonna change this, not legislation. And maybe even time won't change it. The 'majority' already has a big lead on the minority, one that maybe even time won't overcome. I wish there was an easy answer, but there probably isn't. Every society in history has had this same structure. It seems to be a rather natural condition unfortunately. Maybe that alone strong justification for such programs, I'm not really sure. It doesn't seem to have had any major impact yet though. I'm rather indifferent on the matter. But as I've said before I only favor things in my own self interst, and this isn't such a program, so I would tend to not support it.

Although, on one level (qualifications), AA is not needed, on another level (racial/sex/age discrimination), it most certainly is. It's fine to generalize, to a point, that AA only makes some folks, who are inferior in qualifications, dependent upon the system, but, before AA, all people who are minorities, were deemed inferior using only race as a deciding factor. During those days, and sometimes even today, a person with inferior qualifications who happens to be white still has a better opportunity to advance than a minority with superior qualifications. Indeed, even with all qualifications being equal, a white person has a better chance to succeed. Because most who rail against AA are white, they, of course, haven't suffered the slap of discrimination until they run up against AA, but those of us who are not in the majority face such discrimination practically every day.

 

[RD_151]

I agree Gato, in a lot of cases inferior whites are prefered over more qualifed minorities when it comes it upper level positions in particular. It's not a minority versus majority issue though. Those inferior whites probably come from the right families, thus have went to the right prep school, thus got in the the right college, thus made the right connections. It's more of a socioeconomic issue than it is a racial issue. A minority from a wealthy family has the same opportunities. However, you can't say racial discrimination doesn't exist. I didn't mean to imply that it didn't, but its not the major issue. Maybe it becomes so at a certain level though. We haven't had a minority president yet, and its certainly not because there are no qualified minorities. In my opinon the guy we got now is about as inferior as they come, but he came from the right family, thus did all the right things to get where he is. Certainly, discrimination is alive and well, especially in the south. I didn't see it so much up north, but here, it's definitely a part of every day life, much more than I would have expected. It's kind of a different world. I would not want to be a minority living in the south, I understand what you are saying. I dont' face this every day, and thus it is difficult to understand. Still, the majority of the problem is opportunity, and opportunity that is made available based on a socioeconomic level. In that sense, maybe AA could help. If you create a larger population of higher income minorities you could change this. However, its hasn't seemed to have that effect yet. I don't know what the answers are here. The truth is when we apply to a university or for a job we are ALL being discriminated against. Of course, in the US racial issues are much more important than many other places in the world because of its history. Only time can heal these things though, and maybe not even time if we keep trying to make these issues so salient in every day life. I was truly shocked to hear some stories from a friend of mine from MS. They don't even call Martin Luther King day by it's proper name, or was it some other holiday. They call it Robert E Lee day or something like that. They have serveral holidays that don't even exist in the North having to do with the confederacy. Also, on 911, people were not showing their patriotism with red white and blue flags, but rather with the confederate flag. Clearly things are different than MOST of us realize. I actually forgot about this until I read your post. When you don't see it every day, you don't realize its there. It's not like this in the North, but down here, and further south, you are absolutely right, SOMETHING does need to be done. Without AA in the southern states minorities wouldn't have a chance. Racism and discrimination is still quite strong. It is not however such a big issue in the northern states. It's there, but not nearly at the same level. I don't think you need AA in the Northeast or on the west coast, but you are right, AA needs to exist in the south. In fact, this is the thing I hate most about the US. It's the strongest motivating factor for me wanting to leave this country. It's pathetic really. I can't believe people have to behave this way, and racism and discrimination is a two way street. It's frustrating, because it doesn't seem like its going to go away even in our lifetimes. And come to think of it, its not that much better in the north when you compare the US to say Europe or Canada. Why can't people just let go of the past and move on? It's really not doing anyone any good for things to remain the way they are. But again, we can't legislate this change. I wish we could, but we can't. I have no idea how we could change these things.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I beg to disagree, RD. I was born and raised in the North, and I heard the 'N' word more times as I was growing up than I have in the South. The only difference is that, in the South, you know it's going to happen. In the North, you always have to ask yourself if it's going to happen. Many has been the time, where I was genuinely not 100% sure if something like that happening, but felt as though it was. It's hard to explain, but, as you become older, and more jaded, you always have a nagging doubt that, because of your race, you'll never quite get where you're qualified to be. It's like a constant weight is on you that you can't get rid of, no matter what you do.

 

[chcr]

It's not a minority versus majority issue though.

I would say it's not always a minority issue because sometimes it is. I know a lot of white owned businesses around here who would hire a white applicant over an equally qualified black applicant, and screw the law. Of course, there are black owned businesses that would hire the black applicant first as well. Isn't that the same thing?

 

[RD_151]

You are absolutely right Gato. I can't understand unless I've been there. You know, I wasn't really thinking about it, because I don't see it every day. But you post reminded me of a few things. I'm shocked really at how different the world is than how you think it is. You are probably right, the only difference in the north is that is less obvious. Yeah, its always gonna be a factor the more I think about it. At some level, it always will matter. It's sad, but probably true, even with AA in place. I don't think AA is doing much to help really, but the more I think about it, the worse the situation actually seems. I think there will always be a kind of 'glass ceiling' that will be in place for minorities, if not everywhere at least in many cases. I don't really think AA is gonna do much to break that 'glass ceiling' either. It hasn't yet. They will try to be PC in hiring at certain levels, lower level and middle level positions, but the CEO, CFO and other high level staff is going to be dominated by white males for a long time to come.