| | theRealDE | May 4, 6:10pm | | Is absolutely wrong. |
|
|
Sponsor |  Morosoph | May 4, 6:31pm | Affirmative action's when you go around encouraging folks to apply for positions, isn't it? By contrast, positive discrimination is deliberate bias.
Unlike "positive discrimination", I'd stop short of saying that AA was "absolutely wrong", as long as the position is judged on relevant considerations of merit in the final analysis. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Thomas-Jefferson | May 4, 7:19pm | | Affirmative action tends to flirt with quotas or "hiring goals". It amounts to "Positive Discrimination" by hiring or promoting less skilled "minority" persons over more qualified "white" males. It is a euphemism designed to reduce the impression of deliberate bias. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Morosoph | May 4, 7:29pm | It's a tricky line, isn't it? If you go to a place where those you're trying to hire are known to congregate, they might get to hear about a position that they wouldn't have otherwise have heard about. If you also pursue normal channels, there isn't really an issue. If you don't, it gets trickier.
What makes the latter case tricky for me is that selectively informing any group isn't much different from sounding out your friends first. Perhaps the best policy in the marketplace is "hire at will"; those who fail to put in proportional efforts into reaching the whole population will find that they have an inferior workplace.
When it comes to governement-assisted institutions such as universities, since there is then little in the way of accountability, perhaps they should look at what the private sector does as a proxy. |
|
|
Sponsor | |
|
|  Jossey | May 6, 7:57pm | | Its not wrong if it gets you a job..what is the constitution if not a trick? |
|
|
Sponsor | |
|
Sponsor | | AlternaDad | May 9, 4:01pm | | Hirings and firings should be based on merit not skin color. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Morosoph | May 12, 12:10pm | 7,8: The difference between AA and PD is that AA means that folks who might not have otherwise have heard of a job are invited to apply.
The criteria for acceptance are supposed to be the same; if they weren't, it would be "positive" discrimination, rather than AA. This means that someone else shouldn't get your job, since if you're at the same interview, the criteria for selection are meant to be even-handed.
Of course, you can't be at an interview that you don't hear about. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Thomas-Jefferson | May 12, 12:23pm | 9. either way these programs are supposed to result in more minorities hired, and they do. The problem is that the process ends up being based on racism or sexism or etc instead of merit. The philosophical distinctions between these terms are nonexistent in practice.
Because of unspoken quotas and expectations, unqualified people are promoted over people who are qualified. This creates inefficiency and breeds resentment and anger among those who have been disadvantaged, as well as shame and lack of self-respect on the parts of those who were unfairly promoted in this way. |
|
|
|
Politicaly Incorrect → Discussion