Quotas and Affirmative Action Discussion Thread

[U.N. Owen]

an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.

This is an issue I've seen too much lately. Affirmative action and quota are used to diversify the population of some university or business in terms of genders or races. Is this the right thing to do because we need diversity? Is is wrong? Is there any middle ground?

 

[sanae]

probably not going to be the most popular opinion on this forum, but i can't say i'm the biggest fan of affirmative action. forcing diversity for diversity's sake just seems kinda wrong/misguided to me? i think that things should be merit based as much as possible, regardless of circumstance.
that's not to say that i can't see why it's done (because it makes sense for why it's done), i just don't agree with it.

like if i found out that i was denied from the university that was my top choice to attend because they needed to fill some sort of AA 'goal', i'd be fuming. if i was denied from merit, then it's fine. it's a circumstance i more or less brought on myself, even though the result doesn't differ.
but universities don't typically release that information, so it's sort of a nonsensical point.

 

[Bananarama]

But sometimes merit plays no role in whether someone is chosen for a job or admitted into a university. A woman could be completely qualified and educated for a job, and be completely denied because her name is Lakeisha, while a woman who is pretty much equally qualified and educated will get that opportunity because her name is Elizabeth.

There are more factors that relate to this than just merit.

 

[bobjr]

A big problem is people think it's just "Oh this company needs to hire X people" in a way where it's all a surface issue. There's less work done into why the group is under represented, though some groups are trying to fix that.

For example there are several non profit groups out there for women and inner city kids to get into coding and programming, something where those are underrepresented groups.

 

[snorlax512]

It should be based on merit, and merit alone.

The problem with issues like gender is that people are obsessed with equal representation even though there really isn't any reason why we need to have a 50-50 split on everything.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

A big problem is people think it's just "Oh this company needs to hire X people" in a way where it's all a surface issue. There's less work done into why the group is under represented, though some groups are trying to fix that.

For example there are several non profit groups out there for women and inner city kids to get into coding and programming, something where those are underrepresented groups.

Exactly. Giving some groups more representation is a fairly shallow gesture when there are larger systemic issues at play here. Not really worth sacrificing merit for that when the problem is that those groups simply aren't producing people with the same level of talent and education, in some ways that can do more harm than good.

 

[bobjr]

It should be based on merit, and merit alone.

The problem with issues like gender is that people are obsessed with equal representation even though there really isn't any reason why we need to have a 50-50 split on everything.

So what about the groups who don't have the time or opportunity to reach that level of merit? Plus it's never a 50/50 split, it's representational.

 

[Genaller]

So what about the groups who don't have the time or opportunity to reach that level of merit? Plus it's never a 50/50 split, it's representational.

So you're basically saying that people that are objectively less qualified should be given preference if they belong to an underrepresented group on the basis of sympathy that members of that group supposedly didn't get equivalent opportunities to be better qualified and in the same vain someone of an over represented group should be overlooked even if this individual is objectively more qualified than their underrepresented peer candidates? Please confirm if the above is what you mean and if not be more specific about what you're trying to claim. If the above is what you're implying, then I vehemently disagree with you. Merit with respect to the occupation (Uni Student in this case) should always be the primary criterion for judgement when deciding who gets in. What you seem to be saying isn't reasonable but rather intended to evoke pity due to the supposed unfairness of life at times. Well trust me when I say this, LIFE ISN'T ALWAYS FAIR; DEAL WITH IT!!! (and yes I know this from first hand experience but I'm not going to rave about how I deserved preferential treatment because of circumstances far beyond my control).

 

[chess-z]

So you're basically saying that people that are objectively less qualified should be given preference if they belong to an underrepresented group on the basis of sympathy that members of that group supposedly didn't get equivalent opportunities to be better qualified and in the same vain someone of an over represented group should be overlooked even if this individual is objectively more qualified than their underrepresented peer candidates?

Please confirm if the above is what you mean and if not be more specific about what you're trying to claim. If the above is what you're implying, then I vehemently disagree with you. Merit with respect to the occupation should always be the primary criterion for judgement when deciding who gets in.

What you seem to be saying isn't reasonable but rather intended to evoke pity due to the supposed unfairness of life at times. Well trust me when I say this, LIFE ISN'T ALWAYS FAIR; DEAL WITH IT!!! (and yes I know this from first hand experience but I'm not going to rave about how I deserved preferential treatment because of circumstances far beyond my control).

Do you see how paragraph spacing makes a post more readable?

Life isn't fair, sure, but shouldn't we strive to make it more fair? You're argument basically is "We shouldn't take steps to eliminate systematic injustice because..." Because why? Because it isn't fair to your merit based utopia? Please explain.

 

[lemoncatpower]

I think diversity adds more to the labour force than just skills. You get different outlooks that can benefit the company, you can also appeal to more groups of people, equality is always a nice thing to be known for, etc.

I think companies should be able to choose for themselves who is in the company, but I think that every company should try to be more diverse. I also think people should take a closer look at companies and who is at the top running the place as to have more input into what companies they want to support.

When people buy a product or service, a lot of people just want the value and don't care about how it is given, which I think should be corrected in society to weed out companies that don't appeal to everyone.

 

[mtqc]

So you're basically saying that people that are objectively less qualified should be given preference if they belong to an underrepresented group on the basis of sympathy that members of that group supposedly didn't get equivalent opportunities to be better qualified and in the same vain someone of an over represented group should be overlooked even if this individual is objectively more qualified than their underrepresented peer candidates? Please confirm if the above is what you mean and if not be more specific about what you're trying to claim. If the above is what you're implying, then I vehemently disagree with you. Merit with respect to the occupation (Uni Student in this case) should always be the primary criterion for judgement when deciding who gets in. What you seem to be saying isn't reasonable but rather intended to evoke pity due to the supposed unfairness of life at times. Well trust me when I say this, LIFE ISN'T ALWAYS FAIR; DEAL WITH IT!!! (and yes I know this from first hand experience but I'm not going to rave about how I deserved preferential treatment because of circumstances far beyond my control).

Life's not fair, and we'd rather just... keep it this way than help people who are in situations that are beyond their control due to racism, sexism, and the like?

I don't think anyone's saying that these people who win scholarships are somehow "less qualified," anyway... maybe it's just personal experience, but I've never really seen or heard of any scholarships being given out to people who aren't deserving of it. Do you have any examples?

 

[MechanisticMoth]

I am strongly in support of affirmative action and hiring a more diverse group of people. An inner city school with the majority of its makeup being low income students or people of different ethnicities is usually given less resources than an all white neighborhood in a bougie part of town. Those inner city students are not treated the same and find themselves to be struggling more to get through school, have a lower graduation rate, and have a lower college enrollment rate.

By raising these people up and giving them an equal opportunity in college and the workforce, we create a more diverse, open, and fruitful atmosphere and culture. Diversity is important because it strengthens schools, businesses, the sciences, the arts, and the government. By bringing people of different class backgrounds and ethnicities into the conversation, we are more likely to better the world.

Here's a Google Scholar link to numerous papers in support of affirmative action and diverse hiring practices.

 

[snorlax512]

So what about the groups who don't have the time or opportunity to reach that level of merit? Plus it's never a 50/50 split, it's representational.

I was talking about the specific issue of gender, where men and women have pretty much equal opportunity. On average, men and women are better at different things, and take interest in different things.

Therefore, it is pointless when people say "Oh, we want more women in science" just for the sake of diversity. It is unfair for the men who deserve the job, and an insult to the women who got theirs jobs through individual merit.

As for minorities, you can't put a blanket label on them as 'not having the opportunity'. On average, minorities are less well off, but that doesn't hold at the individual level. Are you going to give the place to the black kid who was born in a rich family, in a rich area than the white kid who has the same qualifications who worked his way from a poor background?

 

[chess-z]

lol snorlax is at it again

if there weren't years of insutionalized sexism/racism in this country you would have some ground to stand on, but right now you're ignoring history

 

[snorlax512]

You're basically saying there was institutionalised sexism in the past, therefore you want reverse discrimination in 2017?

Also, you're completely missing my point. Just because white people are generally more 'privileged' than black people does not mean every single white person is more privileged than every single black person, therefore a blanket discrimination system based on race is stupid.

 

[U.N. Owen]

I made this thread because my former boss wanted to put a limit on asians and impose a quota on african americans because our tutoring agency had too many asians and not enough black people because diversity in our tutors would bring in more black clients according to her. I'm not giving my stance on this or the topic, but I want yours.

 

[bobjr]

I was talking about the specific issue of gender, where men and women have pretty much equal opportunity. On average, men and women are better at different things, and take interest in different things.

Therefore, it is pointless when people say "Oh, we want more women in science" just for the sake of diversity. It is unfair for the men who deserve the job, and an insult to the women who got theirs jobs through individual merit.

As for minorities, you can't put a blanket label on them as 'not having the opportunity'. On average, minorities are less well off, but that doesn't hold at the individual level. Are you going to give the place to the black kid who was born in a rich family, in a rich area than the white kid who has the same qualifications who worked his way from a poor background?

If women have the same opportunity but are under represented in higher salary and higher status roles, it means one of two things.

1. Women don't want these higher salary, higher status jobs
2. Women are just as a group more naturally unqualified.

So good luck fighting that battle.

 

[Genaller]

If women have the same opportunity but are under represented in higher salary and higher status roles, it means one of two things.

1. Women don't want these higher salary, higher status jobs
2. Women are just as a group more naturally unqualified.

So good luck fighting that battle.

Okay I'm curious give me the (USA) nation wide stats. Give me the current male and female WORKING population, and the number of men and woman in jobs with a high paying salary (e.g. 200k+). Also these stats should not be occupation specific.

It's actually quite easy to explain a variant of 1. On average women MAY simply be more altruistic and therefore less greedy and power hungry than men.

So would you say that an institution like Caltech is sexist rather than a pure meritocracy?

 

[bobjr]

https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/files/iwpr-export/publications/C440.pdf

So women are so good hearted they just don't take high paying jobs? What about the minority aspect? Even in occupations like Nursing men make more and are fast tracked to higher nursing status.

 

[snorlax512]

If women have the same opportunity but are under represented in higher salary and higher status roles, it means one of two things.

1. Women don't want these higher salary, higher status jobs
2. Women are just as a group more naturally unqualified.

So good luck fighting that battle.

Women do tend to study humanities as opposed to go into STEM fields, so I don't see what that battle is. People have different choices in life, and not everyone chooses jobs based on money.

The problem with a lot of these things is that correlation does not equal causation. A lot of people scream sexism, racism etc... on issues the moment they see a disparity. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are not.

There are so many underlying factors out there like choices, working hours, tendency to negotiate salaries, taking care of children etc... that it is pointless to just throw out the average wages and immediately declare sexism.

If I owned a company, and women really cost 77 cents per man, I would instantly fire all the men and hire all women. If you didn't do this in the capitalistic world we lived in, you would just get eliminated by competition.

I don't doubt there are certain business owners who may have bias in hiring, but when people say there is a illuminati like patriarchy who is responsible for keeping women suppressed I just don't believe it.

If you're a woman who is smart and capable, no one is stopping you from becoming rich.