Diversity or Racism?

[nigel99 476]

I really struggle with the concept of these race based associations. Maybe it's because they are the most visible, but it seems there are plethora of "Association of Black..."

I get that minorities need representation, but are black accountants really more disadvantaged than other people?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[billvon 2,991]

>I really struggle with the concept of these race based associations. Maybe it's because
>they are the most visible, but it seems there are plethora of "Association of Black..."

I don't have an issue with them provided their goal (or method) is not exclusion of other races/religions/sexes etc.

(And yes that would include "Association of white overweight middle age golfers.")

>I get that minorities need representation, but are black accountants really more
>disadvantaged than other people?

For decades they were. Fortunately that disadvantage is quickly disappearing.

[davjohns 1]

Personally, I take issue with them.

I think hilighting the line between groups makes the division greater. I don't see many groups seeking unification or equality. I see groups that are looking for a bigger slice of pie for their constituency. That makes them, by definition, racist or sexist or whatever discriminatory criteria they use for membership / issues.

The reaction to that is resentment on the part of the 'majority'. Caucasians rebel that there are (for instance) black contestants in Miss America, but only black contestants in Miss Black America.

So, the organizations foment discord by getting their constituents fired up. The backlash foments discord among non-constituents.

I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama. It was once synonymous with racial discrimination. But in the 70's and 80's when I was growing up, there was precious little of it in my eyes. I had plenty of black friends and never though twice about it. As the years went on and these special interest groups drew the line darker and deeper, there has been a backlash. I don't like it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

billvon

>I really struggle with the concept of these race based associations. Maybe it's because
>they are the most visible, but it seems there are plethora of "Association of Black..."

I don't have an issue with them provided their goal (or method) is not exclusion of other races/religions/sexes etc.

(And yes that would include "Association of white overweight middle age golfers.")

>I get that minorities need representation, but are black accountants really more
>disadvantaged than other people?

For decades they were. Fortunately that disadvantage is quickly disappearing.

Black, Asian and Hispanic professionals formed Black, Asian and Hispanic professional associations in the post-WW2 to 1960s era for the same reasons that, for example, Irish, Jewish and Italian professionals formed their own respective ethnic professional organizations earlier in the 20th Century - because pervasive ethnic discrimination throughout the business/professional world (including, but also well beyond, employment) made that kind of banding-together a practical necessity. That's not the only reason, of course (there was the social-comfort aspect, etc.), but it was certainly a main one. (Similar to why newly-affluent Catholics and Jews used to start their own country clubs: because none of the WASPy ones would grant them membership.)

This discrimination, even against non-Protestant white people, was really not all that long ago. For example, one Jewish attorney I know graduated from law school in 1967. He aspired to practice business/corporate law in the large, blue-blood law firm environment. But his mentors quietly cautioned him that he'd have trouble landing a job in that environment with his obviously Jewish-sounding name. So, while still in law school, he legally changed his name to a WASP-y sounding name, in time to have his new name on all his transcripts, diplomas and bar certificates. And he's lived the rest of his life with that name.

Just as the purely economical need for Irish, Jewish or Italian professional associations has diminished, so, too, will the economic need for the more recent varieties diminish, too. But that need has simply reduced as compared to decades ago; it most certainly is not gone. Anyone who thinks that black, Asian or Hispanic professionals no longer suffer discrimination in the business/professional world is being naive - the discrimination is still there; it's just more subtle and nuanced.

And the banding-together desire is not unique to ethnic minorities, either. You wouldn't have thought that the Deep South, especially prior to the big spike in regional migration in the 1970s & 80s, would ever have needed a "special organization" to protect and preserve the interests of white Protestants, would you? And yet, there it was.

Last time I checked, the Knights of Columbus and the Bnai Brith still existed, and St. Patrick's Day parades down Main Street USA were still the rule and not the exception. To those who embrace that: More power to you. And to those who get all offended at a Miss Black America pageant or a Black Accountants' Association: Get the sand out of your vagina, and stop looking for stupid reasons to pick an intellectual fight.

[linebckr83 3]

What makes a group of people a minority? Is it their lack of power and influence, or just simply the number of them?

I can't really understand calling the black community "minorities" anymore. If you can force companies to hire you not based on skill or intelligence, but requirements based on skin color, if you are entitled to more grants and payoffs because of skin color, or if you have the power to singlehandedly abuse the judicial system and bring charges and trials to people who have no business being involved, based solely on skin color and political pressure, and then install hate, fear, and chaos based on the outcome, you have far more power and influence than the white community. IMO.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[wmw999 2,447]

They aren't forcing companies to hire them. If they were, there would probably be more supervisory people who were minorities -- as it stands, white males make up the overwhelming majority of supervisors in most places I see, with white females running second. Of course, in some places, there are few ethnic minorities, and that's entirely appropriate.

But where, for instance, the local population is 40% minority, is it really so unlikely that there are any who are qualified?

Thought so.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,991]

>I think hilighting the line between groups makes the division greater. I don't see many
>groups seeking unification or equality. I see groups that are looking for a bigger slice of
>pie for their constituency.

Of course. Democrats and republicans do that. So do skydivers via USPA. So do Irish (think St. Patrick's Day) Italians (my home town's St. Rocco's Festival) and Germans (Oktoberfest.) There's nothing wrong (IMO) with creating such groups or advocating for more rights for your group. Nowadays we have father's groups, men's groups and even white groups advocating for more rights for their causes.

(White groups have the problem that historically they have achieved their ends through violence; still, even here on DZ.com we regularly see people claiming that whites are discriminated against, and that they deserve better treatment.)

The problem comes about when you advocate that other groups are inferior, or aren't capable of being full citizens, or shouldn't be allowed to own land/marry/vote etc. That, to me, is when you start running into problems.

[Nataly 38]

I think it's entirely possible that an entire group of people are so often excluded from opportunities that none of them are currently "meeting the recruitment standards"... However, that doesn't mean that they can't catch up if they ARE given the opportunities. What's more, many of the "standards" are unwittingly exclusive, and don't recognise/acknowledge a whole different set of skills the "new" groups can bring to the table.

There are MANY problems in the current system, and these are not easy to correct. Instead of viewing it as though an incompetent (and black) person is taking the job of a competent (and white) person, we should be looking at the notion that we are integrating more skills and diversity (as opposed to replicating/perpetuating an already-flawed system).

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[Darius11 12]

I don't care really even if you have I hate puppies association if its privet do what you want. I do wish we lived in a world where every one would laugh at such a stupid thought and think hey we are all humane but we do not live in that world. So it is what it is.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[linebckr83 3]

wmw999

They aren't forcing companies to hire them. If they were, there would probably be more supervisory people who were minorities -- as it stands, white males make up the overwhelming majority of supervisors in most places I see, with white females running second. Of course, in some places, there are few ethnic minorities, and that's entirely appropriate.

But where, for instance, the local population is 40% minority, is it really so unlikely that there are any who are qualified?

Thought so.

Wendy P.

Are there not laws in place that require certain minority employment?

Thanks for answering my question for me, but I didn't say that minorities are never qualified for the job. You know that. My problem isn't with minorities who are qualified. Good for them. My problem is requiring certain minority employment with no regards to ability to do the job. That's b.s.

My dad just retired as a captain with the local fire dept. 33 years served. The last 3 years he became extremely frustrated because they were required to maintain a certain level of minority employment. The best candidate for the job...an overweight lazy black male who routinely showed up to work under the influence of both pot and alcohol. You can imagine a fire dept is a team built on trust for eachother, and you wouldn't want this person watching your back. But he was under extreme pressure to keep him employed because of the laws. I don't agree with that no, and he wouldn't have been working there if it wasn't for these laws.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The best candidate for the job...an overweight lazy black male who routinely showed up to work under the influence of both pot and alcohol.

Your specific example is hard for us to evaluate in the absence of more hard, objective facts. "Lazy" I'll admit can be hard to weed-out in the face of policy pressure to consider factors other than pure merit; but of course favoritism in employment has existed ever since the cavemen. But intoxicated? All the employer would have had to do, upon suspicion of intoxication, would be to have a race-neutral policy that allowed them to blood- or urine- or hair-test a suspect employee - if he's hot, he's gone, and if he's clean, end of story. So as I said, your example is a bit hard to accept at face value.

[Nataly 38]

***
My dad just retired as a captain with the local fire dept. 33 years served. The last 3 years he became extremely frustrated because they were required to maintain a certain level of minority employment.

Here's the problem, though... If there is no requirement for more diversity, there will always be an excuse NOT to hire anything other than the same old profiles as before (ie: white male).

Again, a lot of the current standards are designed by and for white men, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that other people don't necessarily meet those standards... There isn't only "one right way" to do things, so it stands to reason that if you only look for one thing, you will exclude a lot of people who fail by your standards but in fact ARE suited to the job.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply "Nataly']a lot of the current standards are designed by and for white men, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that other people don't necessarily meet those standard

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

Are there not laws in place that require certain minority employment?

I don't believe there are. However, if there is a lack of diversity in come cases, it's taken by government agencies as a likely indication of discrimination, which can result in an investigation by that agency, or which can be used by someone in a lawsuit over discrimination as evidence supporting their claim.

For most businesses, it's much easier to ensure that the work population is reasonably similar to the local likely-to-be-qualified population. In the case of the company I worked for, that meant college graduates with science majors. We did not, in fact, have quotas. We did have guidelines, and could be asked to justify a decision to promote a non-minority. I never had an issue with that when I was a manager.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[winsor 236]

wmw999

Quote

Are there not laws in place that require certain minority employment?

I don't believe there are. However, if there is a lack of diversity in come cases, it's taken by government agencies as a likely indication of discrimination, which can result in an investigation by that agency, or which can be used by someone in a lawsuit over discrimination as evidence supporting their claim.

For most businesses, it's much easier to ensure that the work population is reasonably similar to the local likely-to-be-qualified population. In the case of the company I worked for, that meant college graduates with science majors. We did not, in fact, have quotas. We did have guidelines, and could be asked to justify a decision to promote a non-minority. I never had an issue with that when I was a manager.

Wendy P.

Sometimes you have organizations that are "separate but equal." The Black Hockey League comes to mind.

[champu 1]

lawrocket

***a lot of the current standards are designed by and for white men, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that other people don't necessarily meet those standard

What I am concerned about is the idea that there are "white standards" and standards for everyone else. Back in the day, it used to be the idea that minorities lacked the innate talent and capability to do a lot of things to the standard of a white male. So they were not considered for work or other opportunities.

Now it seems as though you are suggesting that minorities lack the innate talent and capability to do a lot of things to the standard of a white male. I cannot help but interpret the statement as being that minorities cannot meet standards that whites can meet.

This is one of the things I was trying to address with this post in the other thread. There's a difference between performance against a particular standard being inherent in ethnicity and being emergent from culture and current socioeconomic status which may merely be correlated with ethnicity.

(Note: this also goes for the ability to correctly define standards to measure against for the purpose of determining competency.)

wmw999

I don't believe there are. However, if there is a lack of diversity in come cases, it's taken by government agencies as a likely indication of discrimination, which can result in an investigation by that agency, or which can be used by someone in a lawsuit over discrimination as evidence supporting their claim.

And this was the other major thing I was trying to address with that other post, recalling an exchange four years ago with everyone's favorite speaker's corner member...

[Bolas 5]

wmw999

We did not, in fact, have quotas. We did have guidelines, and could be asked to justify a decision to promote a non-minority.

Sure sounds like preferential treatment. A person that wanted to score points or just not make waves could be very tempted to promote individuals for criteria other than merit.

Were there policy to justify promotions this would be moot.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Nataly 38]

lawrocket

[Quote "Nataly']a lot of the current standards are designed by and for white men, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that other people don't necessarily meet those standard

I actually am one who has little problem with stating that there are differences between men and women. Men don't breastfeed, so they don't need to have accommodations to express breast milk, for example.

What I am concerned about is the idea that there are "white standards" and standards for everyone else. Back in the day, it used to be the idea that minorities lacked the innate talent and capability to do a lot of things to the standard of a white male. So they were not considered for work or other opportunities.

Now it seems as though you are suggesting that minorities lack the innate talent and capability to do a lot of things to the standard of a white male. I cannot help but interpret the statement as being that minorities cannot meet standards that whites can meet.


This is the opposite of what I am saying. I'm saying white men have developed the current recruitment standards, according to the skills they think are important. Skills you can usually only acquire if you have access to the right opportunities. I'm saying certain groups don't have access to the same opportunities to develop those particular skills. I'm also saying the people recruiting (white men) are ignoring a whole range of other useful skills (because it would never occur to them to look for it).

Let me give an example. Your entire society is made up of hunters. You know of no other way to obtain food. You value traits like speed, strength and accuracy with a spear. People in your community have a high status if they posses these skills - bigger house, larger portion of the kill, et cetera, et cetera. Along comes a farmer. None of the hunters have ever heard of or met a farmer. When they decide which position in the hunt to give the farmer, they are struggling because the farmer is not a good runner, is not strong at all and is a terrible shot. He does not possess the skills they are looking for in a hunter (because he grew up in a farming community) and is deemed useless by the hunters - they do not even let him hunt. They give him a very low rank in the society and/or shoo him away. The problem is, the real objective is to get food. And the farmer IS able to do that. But the hunters simply do not realise this. In fact the society would be better off if farmers were taught to hunt, but more importantly everyone would be better off if hunting was not the only food-source - ie: if farming was included/recognised as an important part of the food-gathering process.

So the current problem is both lack of opportunity (for non-white-males) AND recruitment bias (ie: looking for specific skills, but ignoring or not valuing others). There are other issues as well, obviously.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]The problem is, the real objective is to get food.

[Nataly 38]

Oh dear...

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

Sure sounds like preferential treatment. A person that wanted to score points or just not make waves could be very tempted to promote individuals for criteria other than merit.

Sometimes, I'm sure. Of course, there was also the manager who was guaranteed to recommend for promotion men who went to his university, as well.

The vast majority of promotions still went to majority candidates. The EEO guidelines did guarantee that there was consideration given to the minority ones as well.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)