Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Affirmative ActionFollow

#302 Dec 07 2011 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,

And you wonder why I call you a stupid wh*re.

No i don't.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#303 Dec 07 2011 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,272 posts
Elinda wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,

And you wonder why I call you a stupid wh*re.

No i don't.


How I imagine Varus's thought process.

Hmmm can't reasonabley formulate an expressive thought out response, @#%^ it I'LL CALL HER A WHORE CAUSE THAT'S WHAT REAL MEN DO!

Edited, Dec 7th 2011 11:59am by ArexLovesPie
____________________________

(V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg?
#304 Dec 07 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Only he doesn't know how to spell 'whore'.
#305 Dec 07 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Varus's self-censoring is peculiar for a bunch of reasons. It's not like a couple of choice asterisks are going to trick any of us into thinking that he's a kindhearted man of courtesies. And if he was the least bit concerned about getting banned, it wouldn't have already happened a dozen times.

Edited, Dec 7th 2011 2:56pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#306varusword75, Posted: Dec 07 2011 at 2:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Eske,
#307 Dec 07 2011 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
If you were competent enough to even aspire to be a half-wit you'd know how to say fuck. Then again, you haven't even approached quarter-wit yet since you censor words that don't get changed. You should have stuck with your original Christian story. At least it was almost plausible.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#308 Dec 07 2011 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Eske,

And if you weren't such a half-wit you might have come to the conclusion that I would rather see f*ck in my posts than $*!@ or something like that.



Can't keep your story straight, eh? What's your excuse on ass and whore then? They're not filtered.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#309varusword75, Posted: Dec 07 2011 at 2:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Arex,
#310varusword75, Posted: Dec 07 2011 at 2:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#311 Dec 07 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
That's akin to imagining I know what einstein was thinking when he split the atom.
So just a bunch of nothing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#312 Dec 07 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
varusword75 wrote:
So does this mean everytime someone calls me stupid, or something like it, i'm in fact the opposite because obviously they couldn't reasonably formulate an expressive thought beyond "you're stupid"? So that must mean, in fact, i'm the opposite of stupid.


You know those people of yours? You really should replace them if this is the best thinking they can do.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#313 Dec 07 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Do you actually think I spent time looking for a list of words that are and aren't filtered. G*d you're stupid.

That might hold up if you hadn't already been told multiple times that those aren't filtered.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#314 Dec 07 2011 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,272 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Arex,

Quote:
How I imagine Varus's thought process.


You would have to. That's akin to imagining I know what einstein was thinking when he split the atom.



Quote:
can't reasonabley formulate an expressive thought out response


So does this mean everytime someone calls me stupid, or something like it, i'm in fact the opposite because obviously they couldn't reasonably formulate an expressive thought beyond "you're stupid"? So that must mean, in fact, i'm the opposite of stupid.




They call you stupid because it takes no thought process to realize that you are in fact, stupid.
____________________________

(V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg?
#315varusword75, Posted: Dec 07 2011 at 4:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#316varusword75, Posted: Dec 07 2011 at 4:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) arex,
#317 Dec 07 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
That might hold up if you hadn't already been told multiple times that those aren't filtered.


And that might hold up if I actually paid attention to the majority of what you people clamour on about.

If you were half as intelligent as you'd like us to think you are, you wouldn't even need to be paying attention to grasp it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#318varusword75, Posted: Dec 07 2011 at 4:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#319 Dec 07 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
You can't seriously be this retarded.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#320 Dec 07 2011 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
catwho wrote:
They didn't qualify because they weren't any better than the other guy. AA is supposed to work where, given two equally qualified candidates, you choose the minority or disadvantaged person (this also applies to folks with disabilities) on the assumption that the non-minority is going to have an easier time finding a job elsewhere, which is generally true.

However, if one candidate is clearly, or even just slightly more qualified in any way, then they get the job, regardless of minority status or not.


Except that's not even remotely how AA programs work. The most clear example is in education (admissions and scholarships). Universities measure each student by essentially applying points to each thing about the student. So your grades are factored in, your economic status is factored in, sports activities are factored in, and other extracurricular activities are as well. On top of this, you get additional points simply for being a minority. The result is exactly to make an otherwise less qualified applicant rank higher than they otherwise would solely because of their skin color.

In the job market, it's a little less obvious, but basically companies are rated based on how "diverse" their workforce is. If your company doesn't meet those diversity requirements (which aren't quotas btw, cause they don't call them that anymore!), then they don't qualify for certain things. This could be government contracts, tax breaks, and a host of sometimes subtle, but definitely significant other things (like inclusions in "best places to work" lists and whatnot, which do have an effect on company visibility). This is a bit less direct, but basically if there are sufficient qualified minority workers in an area, AA doesn't do anything, but if there aren't, it has the effect of forcing companies to hire more minority workers to meet the diversity requirements. While we could speculate that perhaps all the extra minority workers are just as qualified as those the company would have hired absent the AA policies, it seems unlikely that's going to be the case all the time, or even more than a small minority of the time.


For the most part, AA works to put less qualified minority applicants ahead of more qualified non-minority applicants. Well, unless you really do believe that racism is so rampant and such a huge factor that business owners would normally and constantly hire less qualified white applicants ahead of more qualified minority ones. And while I'm sure you can find the occasional case of this happening, it's incredibly silly to assume it's so rampant that we need to apply some sort of global balance to offset it. A company which regularly hires less capable people because they are white will find itself losing in the marketplace to a company which just hires people based on their actual qualifications. The idea that we should institute in our laws a system forcing companies to weight people based on their race and not their qualifications just seems like the exact wrong thing to do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#321 Dec 08 2011 at 3:44 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Majivo wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Do you or do you not believe that there is a solution currently in progress (or in plan) that is better than AA in addressing the "generational wealth" gap/problem of which you speak?

If so, then what is it?

If so, but you don't know what it is, then please provide a solution that is better than AA.

How @#%^ing dumb are you? If he doesn't know what the solution is, then how in God's name is he supposed to provide it? Are you seriously this stupid?



I guess you should learn to read? Seriously, the only idiotic thing on this thread are your ignominies of posts.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#322 Dec 08 2011 at 6:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Do you or do you not believe that there is a solution currently in progress (or in plan) that is better than AA in addressing the "generational wealth" gap/problem of which you speak?

If so, then what is it?

If so, but you don't know what it is, then please provide a solution that is better than AA.

How @#%^ing dumb are you? If he doesn't know what the solution is, then how in God's name is he supposed to provide it? Are you seriously this stupid?



I guess you should learn to read? Seriously, the only idiotic thing on this thread are your ignominies of posts. is me.

#323 Dec 08 2011 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Again you're assuming i'm paying attention.


Uglysasquatch wrote:
You can't seriously be this retarded.
That's the beauty of Varus. Once you think you have plumbed the depth of the well: BOOM! He's even stupider than you thought was possible.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#324 Dec 08 2011 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
gbaji wrote:


For the most part, AA works to put less qualified minority applicants ahead of more qualified non-minority applicants. Well, unless you really do believe that racism is so rampant and such a huge factor that business owners would normally and constantly hire less qualified white applicants ahead of more qualified minority ones.

No, AA doesn't work to put less qualified minorities ahead of the poor picked on white guy. It works on putting those as equally qualified on equal footing. Yes, people who hire other people do carry with them long-standing stereotypes...we all do. AA attempts to negate them.

Honeslty gbaji, your inability, or perhaps unwillingness to grasp reality is pretty annoying. I understand you have problems with relationships????

My employer's AA procedures used to assign points for qualification. Minority status would garner you a couple extra points. For job applications the top five point scorers were required to be interviewed. Once the interview process begins it had no further role. It was changed up a few years ago. Now it's pretty much a message that says 'don't discriminate'.

AA Policy Statement wrote:
Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy Statement
The Office of the Attorney General shall continue to pursue a policy of non-discrimination in all employment actions, practices, procedures and conditions of employment.

Employment decisions will be based on the principles of equal employment opportunity. Recruitment, testing, selection, and promotion will be administered without regard to race or color, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry or national origin, whistleblower activity, previous assertion of a claim or right under the Maine Workers' Compensation Act, marital status, or genetic information unless a bona fide occupational qualification exists.

Further, personnel actions and conditions of employment, such as compensation, benefits, layoffs, job assignments, employee development opportunities and discipline shall be administered without regard to race or color, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry or national origin, whistleblower activity, previous assertion of a claim or right under the Maine Workers' Compensation Act, marital status, or genetic information.

Reasonable accommodations will be made for any qualified individual, applicant or employee, in accordance with the provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Managers and supervisors are responsible for awareness of and response to potential discriminatory situations. Employees are required to cooperate fully with the investigation and/or resolution of any discrimination complaint.

Managers and supervisors are required to actively prevent and correct retaliation or harassment toward any employee who has been involved in the filing, investigation, or resolution of a discrimination claim.

The Office will address and attempt to resolve employee complaints regarding discrimination and harassment as expeditiously as possible. Supervisors and managers are required to contact the Office EEO Coordinator if they receive a complaint of this nature.

This policy shall not be construed to prohibit any employment action or policy which is required by federal law, rule or executive order.


Reissued: May 2, 2011






Edited, Dec 8th 2011 2:42pm by Elinda
____________________________
LOOK here.
#325 Dec 08 2011 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
On a side note, I found out this last weekend that I was 3.125% African. It's only moderately interesting because my great great uncle was cut from the Red Sox because they found out that his grandfather was a freed slave. He was outed by a 1912 Boston Herald expose, I hear, so that's just another reason to hate the Boston Herald.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#326 Dec 08 2011 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Elinda, just so you know, depending on how the particulars of your employer's point system works (disclaimer: I didn't read the quoted excerpt), you may have just proved gbaji right.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#327 Dec 08 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Elinda, just so you know, depending on how the particulars of your employer's point system works (disclaimer: I didn't read the quoted excerpt), you may have just proved gbaji right.

You admittedly didn't read my post but are making claims about it's content. good one.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#328 Dec 08 2011 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Elinda, just so you know, depending on how the particulars of your employer's point system works (disclaimer: I didn't read the quoted excerpt), you may have just proved gbaji right.

You admittedly didn't read my post but are making claims about it's content. good one.


At the time, I hadn't read the quote of the "AA Policy", as it took a while to read on my tiny phone (I'm on a train!). I did give it a quick skim though. Just finished reading it, and I don't see anything that invalidates what I said.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 9:12am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#329 Dec 08 2011 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
On a side note, I found out this last weekend that I was 3.125% African.

Your 1.3 acres and mule hoof are in the mail.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#330 Dec 08 2011 at 12:08 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,496 posts
Let's use actual numbers from Elinda's example.

10 people passed the first round of application cuts with scores of 75 or higher. Two of them actually only had a score of 73, but they got 2 bonus points for minority status. The scores are as follows:

1-75 - White male
2-75 - Black male (base score 73)
3-75 - Asian male (base score 73)
4-77 - White female
5-78 - White male
6-80 - Black female (base score 78)
7-82 - White male
8-85 - White male
9-88 - Asian male (base score 86)
10-90 - White female

Candidates 5 and 6 are equally qualified. Candidate 6 will receive the interview invitation, whereas candidate 5 will not. Candidates 1-4 don't receive the interview invitation regardless of race, because they are not as qualified as candidates 5-10. Candidate 5 will have an easier time finding a job elsewhere than candidate 6, being he is a white male and #6 is a traditionally discriminated against group. #6 gets the interview, but has no further advantage due to her minority status in the application process, and will probably lose out to candidates 9 or 10, who are both more qualified than candidates five AND six were.

It sounds like since Elinda's office changed from a formal scoring system, candidates 5 and 6 would be considered tied and would both be invited for the interview, or neither of them would.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 1:09pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#331 Dec 08 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
catwho wrote:
Let's use actual numbers from Elinda's example.

10 people passed the first round of application cuts with scores of 75 or higher. Two of them actually only had a score of 73, but they got 2 bonus points for minority status. The scores are as follows:

1-75 - White male
2-75 - Black male (base score 73)
3-75 - Asian male (base score 73)
4-77 - White female
5-78 - White male
6-80 - Black female (base score 78)
7-82 - White male
8-85 - White male
9-88 - Asian male (base score 86)
10-90 - White female

Candidates 5 and 6 are equally qualified. Candidate 6 will receive the interview invitation, whereas candidate 5 will not. Candidates 1-4 don't receive the interview invitation regardless of race, because they are not as qualified as candidates 5-10. Candidate 5 will have an easier time finding a job elsewhere than candidate 6, being he is a white male and #6 is a traditionally discriminated against group. #6 gets the interview, but has no further advantage due to her minority status in the application process, and will probably lose out to candidates 9 or 10, who are both more qualified than candidates five AND six were.

It sounds like since Elinda's office changed from a formal scoring system, candidates 5 and 6 would be considered tied and would both be invited for the interview, or neither of them would.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 1:09pm by catwho


Just noticed that somehow when I read her post I missed the part where she said that her employer changed away from that system. I had read it as just being a previous employer. Regardless, the fact that it was a system that was in place somewhere should probably serve to show that there isn't a unifying policy in place, and that some of them may toe the line a bit. I think it's probably safe to say that employers probably vary to both sides of that position, some erring more on the side of hiring for race, some erring on the side of hiring for qualification. And of course, said employers could vary on that position from hire to hire, situation to situation. And I don't have a clue of what percentage of employers would handle it in any given way.

The question I'd wonder about is "does AA cause less-qualified minority employees to be hired ever?" And I think it's probably a given that it does.

Anyways, here's an example of the situation that I was alluding to:

Say that there are 6 candidates for the job. 5 are white, 1 is black. 5 are going to get an interview. All of the candidates score say, a 10 except for one white candidate (9) and the black candidate (8). The black candidate gets a 2 point bump, and gets into the interview. He's then beat out one better qualified candidate.

S'all just hypothetical...I don't know how the point system worked in reality.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 1:32pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#332 Dec 08 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
so obviously you drop the highest and lowest. Don't you watch figure skating?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#333 Dec 08 2011 at 4:10 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
so obviously you drop the highest and lowest. Don't you watch figure skating?


If we're doing it that way, then after the first round of interviews, Tonya Harding has someone kneecap the early favorite.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#334 Dec 08 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
sounds like par for the course in a volatile job market.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#335 Dec 08 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Are we to the part we get to become amateur boxers yet?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#336 Dec 08 2011 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Nah, we're all professional German basketball players.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#337 Dec 08 2011 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
"If coach woulda put me in fourth quarter we'd have won state. No doubt in my mind."
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#338 Dec 08 2011 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Elinda wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Elinda, just so you know, depending on how the particulars of your employer's point system works (disclaimer: I didn't read the quoted excerpt), you may have just proved gbaji right.

You admittedly didn't read my post but are making claims about it's content. good one.


The point system was an example of AA, and did exactly what I was talking about (putting less qualified minorities ahead of more qualified white applicants). The new guidelines in the quote is *not* AA. If your policies do not weigh minority status when considering hiring, acceptance, or whatever, then it's *not* AA. Can't think of any way to make this more clear than that. If your current policies do not give minorities and advantage simply because they are minorities, then those policies are not affirmative action based.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#339 Dec 08 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
The question I'd wonder about is "does AA cause less-qualified minority employees to be hired ever?" And I think it's probably a given that it does.


Yes, it does. Because that's exactly what it is designed to do. Any methodology which doesn't give some kind of point bump (or other equivalent advantage) to minorities simply for being a minority isn't an AA methodology.

Another way to look at it is to think about when AA doesn't have any effect at all. If there are ten applicants and 10 openings, then AA doesn't factor in, but it wasn't needed. If there are 5 openings and all 5 of the best applicants are minorities, then they get the jobs and AA didn't factor in (but again, wasn't needed). The only case in which AA changes the hiring/acceptance result is precisely when a better qualified white candidate is bumped from the list because a less qualified minority applicant received an extra couple points due to AA.

That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#340 Dec 08 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,496 posts
The point system that used AA would not, however, guarantee the applicant a job, just that initial foot in the door. The company was still more likely to go with the candidate with the best score on that application, assuming they weren't a socially awkward penguin.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#341 Dec 08 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
catwho wrote:
The point system that used AA would not, however, guarantee the applicant a job, just that initial foot in the door. The company was still more likely to go with the candidate with the best score on that application, assuming they weren't a socially awkward penguin.


Irrelevant though. If the point bump for being a minority makes you the best applicant then you got the job ahead of a more qualified person because of your skin color. If it doesn't, then the AA policy didn't actually change the outcome at all. The point being that the *only* effect AA policies can have is to make less qualified minorities succeed ahead of more qualified non-minorities.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#342 Dec 08 2011 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
The point system that used AA would not, however, guarantee the applicant a job, just that initial foot in the door. The company was still more likely to go with the candidate with the best score on that application, assuming they weren't a socially awkward penguin.


Irrelevant though. If the point bump for being a minority makes you the best applicant then you got the job ahead of a more qualified person because of your skin color. If it doesn't, then the AA policy didn't actually change the outcome at all. The point being that the *only* effect AA policies can have is to make less qualified minorities succeed ahead of more qualified non-minorities.


Which I suppose begs the question of whether or not the person who looks better on paper was actually the better person for the job.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but I was under the impression that AA was supposed to correct for perceived imbalances in the system. You know things that would result in a white person appearing better for a job because they (on average) had an easier time getting those qualifications.

Hard part is you're replacing a potentially biased metric (qualifications) with something more vague (average 'ideal' distributions of qualifications in a population).

*shrugs*
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#343 Dec 08 2011 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Which I suppose begs the question of whether or not the person who looks better on paper was actually the better person for the job.


/shrug. When that's what you have to look at initially, you go with what you have. That can be true without involving race, so I'm not sure how relevant it is to AA. Certainly, I don't see how deliberately making someone look better on paper because of their race helps that situation.

Quote:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but I was under the impression that AA was supposed to correct for perceived imbalances in the system. You know things that would result in a white person appearing better for a job because they (on average) had an easier time getting those qualifications.


To the degree this may be true, the correct solution is to eliminate the unfair/racial imbalances rather than create another imbalance on the assumption that it'll balance things out. The former actually fixes the problem. The latter just hides the symptoms and in all probability perpetuates the problem itself.

To illustrate how this perpetuates the problem: Imagine you are in a position to hire someone, and you want to hire the best person for the job. Let's also assume you know that there are AA policies in place which give extra points to minority applicants. You have before you two applicants who both have the same exact "score" (however that's derived, but which you know includes the racial weighting factor). One is black. One is white. Which one do you hire?

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 3:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#344 Dec 09 2011 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
gbaji wrote:
To illustrate how this perpetuates the problem: Imagine you are in a position to hire someone, and you want to hire the best person for the job. Let's also assume you know that there are AA policies in place which give extra points to minority applicants. You have before you two applicants who both have the same exact "score" (however that's derived, but which you know includes the racial weighting factor). One is black. One is white. Which one do you hire?


Do I get to interview both? Or is this just a 'flip a coin' thing?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#345 Dec 09 2011 at 11:25 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.


That is not the point of AA. The intention of AA is to prevent employers from exclusively hiring people in certain areas (or not hiring them at all) purely based on their skin color, nationality or sex.

The reality, rather you agree with it or not, people are hired and positioned based on sex, skin color, age, looks, being family or friends, etc. AA is to combat that, but the biggest downfall for AA is the assumption that they are qualified people of those groups being discriminated against. As a result, you have less qualified people being hired.

That is the main reason why AA is not an effective overall solution. It doesn't address the problem of people of a certain sex, religion, height, look, skin color,etc. not being qualified for the job.

A better AA solution IMO (for everyone) is to have a government ran "Linked-In" type social network where applications are kept on file. When Joe applies for Wal-mart, he puts his application online, if he's not hired, he is told exactly why he wasn't selected. If he's hired then fired or promoted, same deal with an annual "report".

That way, an organization can be randomly audited for unfair treatment
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#346 Dec 09 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.


That is not the point of AA. The intention of AA is to prevent employers from exclusively hiring people in certain areas (or not hiring them at all) purely based on their skin color, nationality or sex.


It is, and it isn't. There's undoubtedly a side of compensation to it, as well. Perhaps that's due to workplace Affirmative Action being inexorably tied to academic Affirmative Action (which is undoubtedly about bolstering minorities on principle).

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 1:00pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#347 Dec 09 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.


That is not the point of AA. The intention of AA is to prevent employers from exclusively hiring people in certain areas (or not hiring them at all) purely based on their skin color, nationality or sex.


It is, and it isn't. There's undoubtedly a side of compensation to it, as well. Perhaps that's due to workplace Affirmative Action being inexorably tied to academic Affirmative Action (which is undoubtedly about bolstering minorities on principle).

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 1:00pm by Eske


I will give you that.

The only thing that somewhat degrades your comment is the fact that there are so many ways to gain assistance for school not based on merit, that you could argue that most of all administration is tied to some form of "AA".

For example, where you live, your parents, being a single parent, sports, being a certain age, alumni, etc. are all valid reasons for unequal treatment not based on any academic merit in an academic environment.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#348 Dec 09 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
A better AA solution IMO (for everyone) is to have a government ran "Linked-In" type social network where applications are kept on file. When Joe applies for Wal-mart, he puts his application online, if he's not hired, he is told exactly why he wasn't selected. If he's hired then fired or promoted, same deal with an annual "report".


Sorry Joe we don't feel you are qualified for this position because <insert bullsh*t reason here> it is definitely not because you are a <insert race here> with <insert sterotype here>




____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#349 Dec 09 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.


That is not the point of AA. The intention of AA is to prevent employers from exclusively hiring people in certain areas (or not hiring them at all) purely based on their skin color, nationality or sex.


And it attempts to accomplish this by "artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce". You're looking at why it's being done. I'm looking at how it does it. The method really does matter here IMO.

Also, the goal isn't as clear as you made it out to be. AA policies do not do anything to prevent minority business owners from employing only their minority. It only acts to ensure a fair distribution of a select set of minorities are hired/accepted in white owned establishments. I guess my problem with it is that if we think it's wrong to base hiring/acceptance decisions based on skin color, nationality, or sex, then how does creating a program that bases hiring/acceptance decisions on skin color, nationality, or sex do anything but perpetuate the problem?

Quote:
The reality, rather you agree with it or not, people are hired and positioned based on sex, skin color, age, looks, being family or friends, etc. AA is to combat that, but the biggest downfall for AA is the assumption that they are qualified people of those groups being discriminated against. As a result, you have less qualified people being hired.


I agree. That's the problem with AA. The only case in which it "works" is when a qualified person is being discriminated against based on race/sex/whatever. But how do you measure this? How do you even know it's happening? Unfortunately, most of the time the justification for the need of AA programs is simply by looking at the statistical outcomes. Which gets us back to the same kind of failure to see other causes of those statistical differences that I spoke of earlier.


We've created this boogeyman of racism, absent any significant evidence other than statistics. And in our haste to tell people that the reason their group doesn't succeed as well as another is because of race, we also tell them that they're not as responsible for their own outcomes. Surely you can see how when this is done on a large scale it will actually affect the "true" outcomes of that group and possibly even cause the very statistical differences used to justify the whole mess in the first place?

Quote:
That is the main reason why AA is not an effective overall solution. It doesn't address the problem of people of a certain sex, religion, height, look, skin color,etc. not being qualified for the job.


Correct. It treats people as a generic member of their race, sex, etc. It does *exactly* what it's supposedly supposed to be fighting against. We want employers to treat each applicant as an individual and judge them on their own merits, right? But we create a system which forces employers to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. How does that make sense? IMO, it doesn't.

Quote:
A better AA solution IMO (for everyone) is to have a government ran "Linked-In" type social network where applications are kept on file. When Joe applies for Wal-mart, he puts his application online, if he's not hired, he is told exactly why he wasn't selected. If he's hired then fired or promoted, same deal with an annual "report".

That way, an organization can be randomly audited for unfair treatment


That's better, but not really a solution. No one's going to put "he's a darkie" down as the reason they didn't hire someone. Why not just stop trying to fiddle with the social statistics and let society deal with things naturally? Most employers aren't going to hire or fire people based on their race. And those that do will tend to fail to compete against those who are just hiring the best and firing the worst. Why do we need big government programs to "fix" a problem that should fix itself? Doubly so when the programs themselves may actually be perpetuating the problem.


Trust that most people aren't going to screw someone because of their skin color. Move on. I honestly don't understand why those who argue the hardest that we need to end racism seem to work the hardest to institutionalize it into our social fabric. We can't end racism as long as we have racist government policies reminding us every single day of just how racist we all are. That just seems like the opposite direction to go.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#350 Dec 09 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Awesome, gbaji and Alma are arguing with each other now. This thread is headed to some exciting places. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#351 Dec 09 2011 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Find an admin to set up a character cap per post, or we're all going to be crushed by their competing Tower of Babels-of-text posts.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, JennockFV, Samira, Anonymous Guests (56)