russ_watters said:Huh?
1. AA does nothing to the qualifications of the pool of applicants, nor does it increase the pool. It only impacts the decision-making process for which applicant gets picked. People make their own decisions on whether or not to apply for jobs/college. Please quote such a policy, if you think I'm wrong about that.
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/fs11246.htm#.UO9V-G8708gAFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
Each Government contractor with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each of its establishments.
A written affirmative action program helps the contractor identify and analyze potential problems in the participation and utilization of women and minorities in the contractor's workforce.
If there are problems, the contractor will specify in its AAP the specific procedures it will follow and the good faith efforts it will make to provide equal employment opportunity.
Expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training and other areas are some of the affirmative steps contractors can take to help members of the protected groups compete for jobs on equal footing with other applicants and employees.
russ_watters said:2. If there is 1 job opening and 2 people apply, 1 person gets the job and the other does not, right?! One is included and the other not. That's what most of the lawsuits are about!
russ_watters said:I'm not going to read through the whole thing. You tell me how the program works either in your own words or with a key quote.
Area of concern: Underutilization of minorities and women in Job Groups 1 and 4 where external hiring opportunities occurred. Concern regarding low minority and female applicant flow rate resulting from inadequate recruitment for both job groups.
Corrective action: No later than March 1, 2010, notify management and professional recruitment sources, in writing, of FCI’s interest in attracting qualified minorities and women to apply for job openings.
Area of concern: Underutilization of women in Job Group 8 entry-level blue-collar jobs. voncern regarding low female applicant flow rate resulting from inadequate recruitment.
Corrective action: No later than January 1, 2010, contact the local YWCA, local vocational school, and training centers to inform them of FCI’s interest in attracting qualified female applicants.
Area of concern: High termination rate for females in Job Group 8.
Corrective action: Immediately review exit interview survey of terminated females to confirm voluntary reason for leaving.
Action Oriented Programs
FCI has instituted action programs to eliminate identified problem areas and to help achieve specific affirmative ction goals. These programs include:
1. Conducting annual analyses of job descriptions to ensure they accurately reflect job functions;
2. Reviewing job descriptions by department and job title using job performance criteria;
3. Making job descriptions available to recruiting sources and available to all members of management involved in the recruiting, screening, selection and promotion processes;
4. Evaluating the total selection process to ensure freedom from bias through:
a. Reviewing job applications and other pre-employment forms to ensure information requested is job-related;
b. Evaluating selection methods that may have a disparate impact to ensure that they are job-related and consistent with business necessity;
c. Training personnel and management staff on proper interview techniques; and
d. Training in EEO for management and supervisory staff;
5. Using techniques to improve recruitment and increase the flow of minority and
female applicants. FCI presently undertakes the following actions:
a. Include the phrase "Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer" in all
printed employment advertisements;
b. Place help wanted advertisement, when appropriate, in local minority news
media and women's interest media;
c. Disseminate information on job opportunities to organizations representing minorities, women and employment development agencies when job opportunities occur;
d. Encourage all employees to refer qualified applicants;
e. Actively recruit at secondary schools, junior colleges, colleges and universities with predominantly minority or female enrollments;
f. Request employment agencies to refer qualified minorities and women;
6. Hiring a statistical consultant to help FCI perform a self-audit of its compensation practices; and
7. Ensuring that all employees are given equal opportunity for promotion. This is achieved by:
a. Posting promotional opportunities;
b. Offering counseling to assist employees in identifying promotional opportunities, training and educational programs to enhance promotions and opportunities for job rotation or transfer; and
c. Evaluating job requirements for promotion.
russ_watters said:However, pages 11 and 12 are about statistics, which fits the previous discussion of the goals: making the fraction of certain minorities in your organization match the fraction in the general public. That's a quota.
russ_watters said:I don't count discrimination on the basis of court cases. Things like the Philadelphia policy I linked earlier exist and are not being challenged. Hundreds of companies and thousands of people have been discriminated against because of this quota system over the course of decades.
I already did, in my first post of the thread.russ_watters said:Please link and quote if it is that clear-cut.
Fair enough.russ_watters said:The constitution is a broad document describing our entire federal government. AA is one class of policies. The analogy would better be shown in the adopting then scrapping of the 18th Amendment: a single-issue item in the Constitution.
Hyperbole is unnecessary. The analogy served to point out the danger in the line of reasoning, not make any claims about the validity of either concept. It does not always follow that poor implementations are due to flawed concepts.russ_watters said:Only if quantum mechanics were at the same state as AA: never having been shown to be anything but crackpot "bullcrap".
I'm not sure the 'period' is justified. It seems to me like the Constitution goes to great lengths to protect individual freedoms but apparently stops short when it may be argued that a significant societal harm is done by going further. For instance, there are limits on the freedom of speech (you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater), and the right to bear arms (you can own a handgun, but not a hand grenade). I, personally, am not sure exactly where in the Constitution these limitations are permitted, but I think it'll be easier to convince me that AA is constitutionally sound than to convince me that it's good.russ_watters said:I completely accept the noble goal of AA, but:
1. The US Constitution does not allow the logic of AA. The Constitution protects individual rights. Period.
...
I concede that 'fire' was a poor example (but not firearms). Maybe Schenck would have been a better example. Or eminent domain powers.russ_watters said:That example fails from both sides, Gokul:
Will you go a step further and agree that there are?I'm not saying that there aren't examples of individual rights that are limited due to potential for societal harm...
No. I haven't thought through the other side enough to have thought of any on my own.Gokul43201 said:Will you go a step further and agree that there are?
The Second Amendment is so poorly written and out of its time I have trouble reconciling it logically at all. At face value though, you would seem to be correct.but not firearms
The "whiteness" of NFL coaches is in the news again (as a bad thing that needs to be fixed), while the under-representation of whites in the NBA is being lauded...of course the NBA doesn't spin it that way though.willbell said:...but in a field dominated by a single race where prejudice towards that race could exist it might be necessary to take those small steps towards equality.
http://www.nba.com/2012/news/04/26/minority-coaches-NBA.ap/index.htmlFourteen NBA head coaches are black, tying the 30-team league's own record for the most ever in a sport.
With Canales and Miami coach Erik Spoelstra, a Filipino-American, the NBA has 16 coaches of color, its most ever, according to Richard Lapchick, the director of the institute for diversity and ethics in sport and the primary author of the Racial and Gender Report Card that gives the NBA higher grades than any other sport.
The league earned an A last year -- with an A+ in the race category -- largely for the high number of league executive positions held by minorities.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8869547/time-update-rooney-ruleDuring the 2011 season, there were 11 minority head coaches (including interim job-holders), but the 2013 season will start with just four.
Those income differences vanish when corrected for educational attainment, marital status, age and the like, at least they did a few decades ago.BobG said:... You continue the policies because things are moving in the right direction, but you haven't gotten there yet.
Taking http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H03W_2011.xls and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H03B_2011.xls incomes from 1967 to 2011, tossing them into a spreadsheet, and comparing black incomes as a percentage of white incomes, you have mixed results.
...
Dembadon said:It increases the pool by using outreach and recruitment programs in underrepresented areas, just one example. I never claimed it did anything regarding the qualifications of the applicants, nor did I claim people don't make their own decisions about applying for jobs/college. Giving a group access to positions that were previously inaccessible does not force them to apply for them. It also does not force anyone to select them for such positions. Quotas are gone.
I guess I'll link this again:
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/fs11246.htm#.UO9V-G8708g
Outreach, recruitment, and training efforts increase the pool size by reaching out to underrepresented groups. Opportunity provisions are separate from the selection process. I've yet to find anything in the executive order or the AA requirements that specify selection procedures which are to be followed. The selection process is to be conducted without discrimination. Efforts to increase the pool from which candidates are selected are what's addressed by AA.
They both were included in the pool. If discrimination were present, one would be unjustly excluded from the pool. For example, assume you're a company looking to fill a janitorial position. It's possible to exclude an entire segment of the population from even being able to be in the pool of applicants if you only provide applications in English. Since a janitorial position probably does not require someone to be completely fluent in English, you could increase the pool of applicants by providing applications in other languages. By providing applications in other languages, you do not exclude anyone.
I'm requesting a bit of latitude here, since it would be difficult to present an entire AA program with a key quote. Here are the contents of the pages with corrective actions for problem areas shown by the company's data analysis. I do not see any discrimination present in the corrective actions.
From page 16:
From page 17:
A goal is not a quota. What you saw in the AAP were goals. Quotas are rigid and exclusionary; they imply, "This is what you must achieve, no matter what." Goals are flexible and inclusive; they imply, "This is what we think you can achieve if you try your best." Goals are simply program objectives translated into numbers. They provide a target to strive for and a vehicle for measuring progress.
http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/faq/1660
Then how are you defining "often" without numbers? If you don't like court cases, is there a study to support your position? Something that would lead you to believe that reverse discrimination due to AA occurs "often"? Also, to include cases that happened decades ago is hardly fair, since we're talking about AA's current requirements, which have changed.
I already did, in my first post of the thread.
Fair enough.
Hyperbole is unnecessary. The analogy served to point out the danger in the line of reasoning, not make any claims about the validity of either concept. It does not always follow that poor implementations are due to flawed concepts.
Here is an example of an AAP that meets the Dept. of Labor's standards. Pages 15 through 19 show problem areas and their possible solutions. I was not able to find any unjust or prejudicial treatment in the solutions proposed.
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compli.../sampleaap.pdf
• No later than March 1, 2010, notify management and
professional recruitment sources, in writing, of FCI’s
interest in attracting qualified minorities and women to
apply for job openings.
• No later than March 1, 2010, expand FCI’s recruitment
program to colleges and universities with a significant
percentage of minority and female students.
The following documents are maintained as a component of FCI’s internal audit
process:
1. An applicant flow log showing the name, race, sex, date of application, job title,
interview status and the action taken for all individuals applying for job
opportunities;
2. Summary data of external job offers and hires, promotions, resignations,
terminations, and layoffs by job group and by sex and minority group
identification;
3. Summary data of applicant flow by identifying, at least, total applicants, total
minority applicants, and total female applicants for each position;
russ_watters said:The "whiteness" of NFL coaches is in the news again (as a bad thing that needs to be fixed), while the under-representation of whites in the NBA is being lauded...of course the NBA doesn't spin it that way though.
http://www.nba.com/2012/news/04/26/minority-coaches-NBA.ap/index.html
With 14 whites out of 30 coaches, that's 46%. With 72% of the population being white, they are under-represented by a whopping 7 coaches. Shouldn't that be cause for concern, leading to an Affirmative Action program to attract white coaches?
Recently, regarding the NFL: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8869547/time-update-rooney-rule
The NFL has 32 teams, so 4 is under-representing minorities by 5...though 2011's 11 was over representing them. But this is apparently cause for great concern.
Double. Standard.
BobG said:Actually, you abandon the policies because they've improved things to the point you're satisfied (mission complete) or because they've provided no improvement at all (mission failure). You continue the policies because things are moving in the right direction, but you haven't gotten there yet.
Taking http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H03W_2011.xls and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H03B_2011.xls incomes from 1967 to 2011, tossing them into a spreadsheet, and comparing black incomes as a percentage of white incomes, you have mixed results.
The top 20% of black incomes are between 65% and 70% of the top 20% of white incomes and stayed flat for 45 years.
The middle 5th of black incomes started out less than 60% of the middle 5th of white incomes, has reached as high as 67% of the middle 5th by the early 2000's, but has settled back down to around 62% of white incomes. In other words, there's been some improvement, but not great. In fact, it's gotten worse over the last decade.
The 2nd lowest 5th went from less than 55% of the 2nd lowest white incomes to almost 65% of the 2nd lowest white incomes by the early 2000's, but has fallen back to barely over 55%. In other words, there was some significant improvement among a group that needed it a lot, but that improvement has virtually disappeared during the last decade.
The lowest 5th of black incomes went from just under 60% of the lowest white incomes and has fallen to less than 50% of the lowest white incomes. Whatever we've been doing to reduce racial disparity in incomes has been a failure when it comes to the most poor (and especially over the last decade).
How common is that? A point system is discrimination during the selection process, something which is explicitly stated as unsatisfactory on the DoL's website.Einstein Mcfly said:I may have missed it, but have you addressed the notion of providing extra "points" in an applicant's favor because of their race? You seem to be sticking to this idea that all AA is nowadays is "outreach and training" and "broadening the applicant pool" and not the elements that related directly to outcomes based on race.
"People who aren't in that category" are already being exposed to the opportunities.Tosh5457 said:Those solutions are discriminatory, although in a subtle way:
To attract qualified minorities and women for job openings means that people that aren't in that category won't get nearly as exposed to those opportunities.
That only makes sense if you assume all coaches are former pro players and that the demographics hasn't changed as they age...and that all of that is relevant. If we go there, then we have to start asking why whites are under-represented in pro basketball as players and what can be done to fix that!Jack21222 said:Why are you using the general population here? Shouldn't you be using the set of all basketball players as your population? I guarantee you that not 72% of basketball players are white, so why would you use that number?
You are misunderstanding the purpose of an AAP. An AAP for a college would expand the pool of candidates for selection. What people do after they've been selected is their own business. At no point in the description of AA does it state a desire for equal representation in what people choose for their major.Tosh5457 said:East Asians have proportionally more people in math related courses than whites, where's the AA program to correct that?
Why do you think that is? If you feel it's due to lack of recruitment, outreach, or training, then it should be addressed by AA. If not, then it's irrelevant because you can't force someone into a given hobby/profession, nor is that the goal.Tosh5457 said:Blacks have proportionally more running athletes than other ethnicities, where's the program to correct that? If we're going to pretend ethnicity doesn't play a role in anything there's a lot to correct...
russ_watters said:That only makes sense if you assume all coaches are former pro players and that the demographics hasn't changed as they age...and that all of that is relevant. If we go there, then we have to start asking why whites are under-represented in pro basketball as players and what can be done to fix that!
What do you mean "Jews are over-represented in many sectors"? Jew(ish) is not a race. Like Christian is not a race. And please provide the valid source that backs up your statement.Tosh5457 said:Jews are over-represented in many sectors. Where's the AA norm to "correct" that? I'm sure that many of AA supporters would oppose something to correct that.
Dembadon said:How common is that? A point system is discrimination during the selection process, something which is explicitly stated as unsatisfactory on the DoL's website.
Dembadon said:Is AA perfect? No. How about some better ideas? I've yet to hear anyone provide an alternative. If you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, let's hear a better plan for preventing discrimination.
Einstein Mcfly said:There is no fair solution that only addresses this at the back end (hiring, admissions etc). The only way to get an underrepresented group to be more successful is to address the issue at the front end by making them equally qualified. This means that whatever their group/culture is missing compared to successful groups must be addressed. Minority groups that don't have the need for AA such as east and south asians have cultures with prize studying and scholastic achievement, parental involvement and value higher education. The first step is for all to have equal opportunity (access to decent education), but to enforce equal outcomes among individuals that aren't equally qualified will always be unfair.
Curious3141 said:It's not quite so simple. There's been a reasonably well-conducted Canadian study that proved that job applicants with non-white sounding names had far fewer responses than those with white names.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...g-name-may-affect-the-job-hunt/article555082/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/20/bc-ubc-job-study.html
The discrimination is so entrenched that many applicants are not getting a fair shake simply because their names don't sound "white" enough. They never even get a chance to attend an interview, discuss their qualifications and experience, and convince the would-be employers that their language skills are up to scratch. Instead, they're being excluded because of the names they were given at birth.
This form of discrimination is very difficult to eradicate. Assuring equal access to education, etc. will not solve the problem entirely. A racial quota-based system is far from perfect, but at least it'll "force" employers to hire a fair proportion of qualified minorities and somewhat offset this sort of discrimination.
Einstein Mcfly said:This thread is growing tiresome, as you seem to be seizing on one specific and uncontroversial instance of one organization's phrasing of "affirmative action" and ignoring (either through ignorance or convenience) the many controversial instances of affirmative action. I don't see how anyone taking part in an honest argument about this can claim that they don't know about extra points for race in college admissions. This the entire point of the current case before the supreme court.
Evo said:What do you mean "Jews are over-represented in many sectors"? Jew(ish) is not a race. Like Christian is not a race. And please provide the valid source that backs up your statement.
They're not a different race. Let's stick to facts. And Tosh's rant was off topic to the thread.Skrew said:Not quite, Ashkenazi jews can be considered a genetically distinct group, at least according to wiki.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
Their evolution was looked at in a book I read called "The 10,000 year explosion".
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465020429/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Their IQ(which is also looked at here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence) according to the book is at the top end of all groups tested so it would be no surprise if they dominated Ivy League universities or other intellectual areas, which I think Tosh was referring to(I actually believe I read they do in fact, but I can't find the source off hand).
Evo said:They're not a different race. Let's stick to facts. And Tosh's rant was off topic to the thread.
Which is completely off topic for this thread. This is about Affirmative Action. Not about how cultures regard academic achievement.Einstein Mcfly said:This is very much on point as I see it, as however you decided to explain the grouping, they definitely have a distinct culture that prizes academic achievement, family stability etc and this, not race, seems to me to be the key to their (or any other groups') success.