"affirmative action doesn't advocate the hiring of under qualified people. It advocates the hiring of qualified people including minorities and women where they are under represented."

I realize that AA does not advocate the hiring of underqualified people -- but it ensures that "being black" or "being female" is a qualification, and I don't think those things should be qualifications.

In regards to bittersweet's comments:

"I'm not confident you're a racist, Ian the Second, but I'm confident you share at least one common justification for abandoning AA with the Real McCoy."

I have absolutely no problem with being in partial or even total agreement with racists or sexists on one or more issues, and you should readily realize that that does NOT make me a partial or total racist or sexist. Why you would abandon all maturity and imply that I was, is beyond me.

Bittersweet:

"These "civil rights movements" you acclaim have had a great deal to do with creating the groundswell that brought AA into existence. Politicians hopped on the bandwagon, as they will, but their opportunism followed popular initiative, obviously."

"Their opportunism followed popular initiative" -- that's rich. How do you explain all the broken election promises, then? Maybe here I'm being a tad too pessimistic. Don't let me spoil your fantasy, though.

Bittersweet:

"You applaud "civil rights movements", but your enthusiasm vanishes when one of their strategies appears to be effective, and offers a paltry threat to the dominant culture. You think it only natural that "cultural trends" such as discrimination are "slowly but surely on their way out"."

In applauding "civil rights movements" as a whole, I was perhaps too optimistic and naive, as would be anyone who did so. I was making a generalization. I certainly don't think that every project begun or supported by special interest groups is correct, representative of the interests they claim to be fighting for, or devoid of corruption.

Indeed, special interest groups themselves, many of which have become firmly entrenched institutions in the past decades, are guilty of the same opportunism as our parliaments and congresses. Many are also guilty of being out of touch, top-down, shamelessly self-promoting organizations. Whether or not you agree with this opinion, you at least have to admit that they are worthy of suspicion.

Bittersweet:

"Accordingly, your concern about segregation can only seem disingenuous. You believe AA is responsible for a lack of effective programs that might help ghetto kids because it diverts politicians' attention. It gets votes. (In other words, voters seem to like it; perhaps they're on to something.) This reasoning assigns blame to an initiative that had its genesis in the "civil rights movements" you applaud--that was designed to assist minorities in attaining decent jobs--because its popularity usurps other initiatives. You offer zero evidence to support this claim."

I thought I did offer evidence - the evidence that little else is being done, and look how little has changed. That speaks for itself. In the meantime, voters are made to think as if Congress is "on it", when Congress obviously is not "on it".

When it comes to providing proof, bittersweet, the onus is on the legislators, NOT the critics. It's not up to ME to prove to everyone's satisfaction that AA does not work, it's up to it's advocates to prove that it does something other than offer merely a false sense of security to persecuted groups. We live in an increasingly patronizing, uptight society, and AA is just one more patronizing, condescending initiative to add to the long list.

And in keeping with that theme, let's look at your assumption that since AA was voted for, "democratically", it must be good - that the voters are "on to something". There is an element of democracy that is tyranical - you've no doubt heard it said that democracy is tyranny by the majority. While I don't reject democracy out of hand, as I feel it can be an effective method of self-determination, it should be noted that the United States (whose legislation we are discussing) is a *constitutional* republic, where the rights of the individual are protected under law. This necessarily means that there are certain unalienable rights that all individuals have.

Unfortunately, many people have begun to confuse "rights" with "priviledges". When we say that someone has the *right* to "have a job, to work where they want and for whom they want", we mean that no one, not even the government, can interfere with their obtainment of that work. We do NOT mean that the government OWES them a job (well, evidently some people DO think that).

It is actually more in line with the ideals of "democracy" (or what most people imagine the ideals of democracy to be), to allow citizens to seek out their own employment in a (truly) free market, without insisting that the government legislate the extent of their "priviledge" of having a job. So much for the Constitution!

Bittersweet:

"In short, you blame the disenfranchised you profess to care about for accelerating their progress beyond "slow and surely". This laissez-faire approach to inequity resembles yet another quality of thought: the so-called "free market" approach to society's ills."

I never stated that the "free market approach" as you put it, is a solution to society's ills. I would like to believe that society's ills can, in time and with patience, be solved *by society*. This means letting those who are actually affected - "ill" - represent themselves, because after all only they know the true extent of their ills. I do not find myself more qualified to speak about what anyone else is going through than they are... so why do you? It's the same attitude of those who think that weird people should be put on Prozak so that they'll stay "in line".

Well, I think that in the long run, denying the Constitutionally protected rights of the individual creates more problems than it solves, as the current eroded state of the U.S. Constitution indicates. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask ourselves, what forms of discrimination are we initiating and perpetuating now, in 2002?

quote:

---

you should readily realize that that does NOT make me a partial or total racist or sexist. Why you would abandon all maturity and imply that I was, is beyond me.

---

I'm not surprised this is beyond you, when you "have absolutely no problem with being in partial or even total agreement with racists or sexists on one or more issues." [my italics]. Anyone who has absolutely no problem agreeing with racists or sexists on "one or more issues" is plainly not interested in self-reflection. This attitude is all it takes to guarantee that implications of racism would remain "beyond" one. A steadfast commitment to staying comfortable with one's quality of thought, no matter the sort of company who share it, despite opportunities to understand the implications, means that any and all otherwise uncomfortable associations will never provoke a reassessment of one's values. To repeat myself, I am not confident that you are a "partial or total" racist or sexist; however, the content of your posts suggest that you aren't likely to ever find out.

The rest of the post, not surprisingly, further exposes the nature of these values, and why their implications remain "beyond" you.

quote:

---

I thought I did offer evidence

---

Not the kind you mean, Ian the Second, not that kind at all.

[edited to add an "r" to suprisingly]

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

quote:

---

Unfortunately, many people have begun to confuse "rights" with "priviledges". When we say that someone has the *right* to "have a job, to work where they want and for whom they want", we mean that no one, not even the government, can interfere with their obtainment of that work.

---

Is it a right or a privilege to be able to raise your family in a secure and healthy atmosphere? Who is interfering at this point to ensure women and minorities are NOT equally represented in the work force today. How do you suggest we stop that interference?

As for proof that AA works I can only speak from my own experience. I am the first women IN HISTORY to work in my division at my work-place. I can only say that both myself and my co-workers have learned immense amounts about equal opportunity employment.

The only educational requirement for my position is high-school. It is a high paying, job so they recieve a lot of applications for positions when they do open up. If of 200 applicants we all were "qualified" at the basic required level but I was the only woman applicant can't you see the benefit to ensuring I get the job? As the only woman I can not only proove to other women that the position is well worth considering, I can also guide the culture of the work-place to ensure it is comfortable for everyone to work within.

I work for the railroad. People (especially children) love trains. I get a great feeling of satisfaction when a young girl waves at the train and I can wave back. She would never have seen a woman waving back at her before I began the position.

"As for proof that AA works I can only speak from my own experience."

Right. Because you can't make rational arguments as to why employers should be forced to hire on the basis of gender and race.

Skadie:

"The only educational requirement for my position is high-school. It is a high paying, job so they recieve a lot of applications for positions when they do open up. If of 200 applicants we all were "qualified" at the basic required level but I was the only woman applicant can't you see the benefit to ensuring I get the job?"

No, but I'm sure you can. Can you see the DRAWBACK of ensuring that you got the job? What if the employer got a bad feeling about you in the interview? Employers base A LOT on the initial intuitions from the job interview, and that can't be helped. (Any possible resentment should be over with in the job interview, and NOT after a person gets accepted for the job and has to work under or around people who are prejudiced against him or her.)

There is a word that alot of people are programmed to recoil in horror from: discrimination. However, that is what all employers do - they discriminate. Sometimes they follow their intuition, which necessarily means following their prejudices, some of which they aren't even conscious that they have.

If you think I'm apologizing for them, I'm not. But nor am I particularly interested in apologizing to you for your being a woman.

Skadie:

"As the only woman I can not only proove to other women that the position is well worth considering, I can also guide the culture of the work-place to ensure it is work within."

You don't speak for all women. There are many women in the U.S. and Canada , from all races and socio-economic backgrounds, who think that AA is a load of crap.

Skadie:

"I work for the railroad. People (especially children) love trains. I get a great feeling of satisfaction when a young girl waves at the train and I can wave back. She would never have seen a woman waving back at her before I began the position."

She wouldn't have seen a woman waving back at her before then because you were the first woman - and I think you're a little full of yourself because of it.

quote:

---

There is a word that alot of people are programmed to recoil in horror from: discrimination. However, that is what all employers do - they discriminate. Sometimes they follow their intuition, which necessarily means following their prejudices, some of which they aren't even conscious that they have.

---

But I am curious ...... do any of you actually work in an equity hire workplace??

The Department sets equity goals, and with HR looks at removing systemic barriers to employment for the four equity groups. There are no "quotas" and in the last entry level hires it seemed that there were a little bit of all spectrums of the human race. And its not just to hire entry level folks, its also about looking at the job descriptions etc for more senior staff.

quote:

---

What if the employer got a bad feeling about you in the interview? Employers base A LOT on the initial intuitions from the job interview

---

Employers base a lot on their initial PREJUDICES at the job interview. I was asked if I'd be scared working in a dark rail yard. Do you think the male applicants were asked that question? I was asked if I had "a problem" working with men. Do you think the men were asked that question? Should I have not been offered the position because the men that hired me had a bad feeling about allowing a woman to enter their work-place? Or maybe they should be mandated to give it a try. And I will say again that the company I work for has opted for an equity hire policy because they consider it to be the best possible direction for their future.

As for feeling full of myself for being the first woman in my position at my company, well yes, I am proud of it. And as I said, I am happy that possibly other women would consider a position in a similar work-place after seeing me chug by on the engine. I am also happy that the panel of men who hired me have had a chance to see my work and would reconsider the things they look for in future hiring situations.

I think all of my points were very rational and help to support my own views of affirmative action. I wonder who you think might be more qualified to offer an opinion?

I can't see any problem with my offering my own experience in this forum. I'm not speaking for every woman and I think that is pretty clear.

She was told the workforce was primarily male and asked if "she would have a problem" with this. She was asked if she could get along with "boys." She answered she had no problems and could get along. She wasn't hired.

The example you provided regarding is one of them. I had witnessed a quite similar situation.

The big boss where I used to work was not as or trained as the candidate who applied for a position of supervisor. Most obviously feeling threatened by the candidate, she was determined to eliminate him in the interview. The candidate was Jew. The question was:"How would you feel working in an environment where we have an Arab on staff ?" (The Arab vbein myself).

The big boss related to us the story one month after the event. I have never felt so awful, used by the big boss for her own purposes, and guilty for my mere existence there. Two weeks after, I moved on...

I have met the candidate the day of the interview, offered him a coffe and chit chatted. A very nice, eloquent and by all means considerate and cultured fellow.

Then I have my own experience. I have applied for this job. Provided CV etc.. showing the Candian Universities I have attended and graduated from. But my name did not sound a "real Canadian name".

The Executive Director of the agency phoned me. He asked me which secondary school I have attended. (Begging for a job, were I in a position to argue the appropriateness of the question ?)

Two goals for his call: 1) gauge the accent, if any and 2) see where I come from originally.

quote:

---

Can you see the DRAWBACK of ensuring that you got the job? What if the employer got a bad feeling about you in the interview? Employers base A LOT on the initial intuitions from the job interview, and that can't be helped.

---

Of course they do, Ian. That's the point. When all it takes is black skin or an accent to give people a "bad feeling", something needs to be done about it.

And yes - it CAN be helped. Through equity hiring and Affirmative Action. By creating policies to eliminate the "bad feeling" factor in hiring, you are ensuring that the workforce grow and that people learn that their "bad feelings" really have no place in reality. That's the experience Skadie is trying to share with you.

That's how you start getting rid of the unfounded "bad feelings" in the first place.

Your bitter attack on Skadie has really undermined any validity your arguments might have had. It would almost be amusing if it wasn't so sad and tired.

Your problem ain't with the skin tone, is with the attitude.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Gee, would I want to hire someone who believes that my white skin automatically makes me a closet racist? Not someone I'd feel comfortable working with. Not someone I'd want to hire, unless we were under pressure from HR to hire a minority.

---

quote:

---

Or maybe it occurred to him that she's been co-opted by the system that handed her this goody?

---

"This goody"? A job? One job in an organization in which skadie is THE ONLY WOMAN? Sweet bearded jesus, melora, do you really suppose that of the dozens of white men skadie works with she AND ONLY SHE is the only non-white/male applicant EVER to apply there and be qualified for a job?

Oh right, I forgot. Your assumption is that, indeed, Skadie *isn't* qualified--hence the "goody" remark. So, if I understand you correctly, skadie's workplace is almost entirely white and male because white men have showed themselves to be the only people worth hiring all this time. Anyone of any other sex or ethnic background--if they were encouraged to apply at all--must've just sucked so bad there was no way management would take them on. For no other reason than that. Except for skadie. Who didn't actually deserve it anyway and is but a token woman.

quote:

---

Gee, would I want to hire someone who believes that my white skin automatically makes me a closet racist?

---

You make a pronouncement about the way every person of colour thinks and...

quote:

---

maybe it occurred to him that she's been co-opted by the system that handed her this goody?

---

I certainly was not handed my job. I visited their doctor for a physical and I wrote and passed about three hours worth of exams, travelled to the U.S.A. to have the strength of my joints tested and sat through a demeaning interview with three old-timers. All of that to be accepted into a long training program with more studies and tests (mental and physical) and a bunch of old men who felt women had no place working along side them.

Some goody. If you don't know what you are talking about (ie. my experience) then please don't comment on it.

The reason they opted for me over a man who passed the same tests is because of a corporate mandate to make the entire work force more diverse and flexible enough to suit the needs of all employees. Guess what? It works.

quote:

---

she's been co-opted by the system that handed her this goody

---

There it is. Exposed, unadorned, unequivocal, contempt. Skadie's evident value to her employer, and to the broader culture, is callously dismissed and even ridiculed by suggesting that her acceptance of the job offer really meant being seduced by a corrupt system and/or employer, a sign of weakness. According to this logic, even the job itself is merely an enticement, a "goody".

For that matter, the remark is equally contemptuous and dismissive of Skadie's employer, who, it is implied, was either "co-opted" himself, or who was insincere, the mastermind behind Skadie's co-option. Facts like the employer's obvious satisfaction with the decision to hire Skadie due to the benefits she brings the company are ignored, in order to justify the irrational attack.

On the contrary, I think it belittles her dignity *as a worker* that her being a woman was a qualification in the first place. Making that a qualification belittles her dignity, and the dignity of all workers.

-------------

quote:

---

This means letting those who are actually affected - "ill" - represent themselves, because after all only they know the true extent of their ills.

---

Then:

quote:

---

I think it belittles her dignity *as a worker* that her being a woman was a qualification in the first place.

---

So. First an acknowledgement that women, who are uniquely qualified to know the "true extent of their ills" in terms of under-representation in certain industries, should be the ones to "represent themselves". But when women organize in order to actually "represent themselves" and their effective lobbying brings attention to this under-representation, and convinces "opportunistic" politicians to enact their recommendations, such as AA--then accepting the benefits of one of their own recommendations "belittles [their] dignity."

According to this reasoning, women should stand up for themselves because they know their issues best, but they should not accept the results of standing up for themselves because that would be "belittling".

What is "belittling" is encouraging women (and other minorities) while simultaneously, and cynically, assuming a posture as their moral superior, warning of the moral dangers you attribute to their initiative and success.

quote:

---

a regressive policy that will eventually poison the very people it was intended to help and subvert its own aims in the process.

---

Apparently Skadie--along with "Black Americans and Americans as a whole"--is not only guilty of being "co-opted" for accepting the job, now she's being poisoned for it. At the same time, her ability to work in the field of her choice, and to put food on the table for her family, among other benefits, unaccountably ensures that the "aims" of the "regressive policy" that helped her achieve these benefits are "subverted".

quote:

---

Is it a right or a privilege to be able to raise your family in a secure and healthy atmosphere? Who is interfering at this point to ensure women and minorities are NOT equally represented in the work force today. How do you suggest we stop that interference?

---

I will ask again, Ian et al.

quote:

---

On the contrary, I think it belittles her dignity *as a worker* that her being a woman was a qualification in the first place. Making that a qualification belittles her dignity, and the dignity of all workers.

---

It is obvious that you've missed the point...

The point is that up until now male whiteness has BEEN the unspoken qualification. And not just for jobs - for success, respect, strength, honesty, integrity...

Skadie didn't meet that stupid qualification, and the qualification never made sense in the first place. SO they've ditched the qualification of being a white male. That's IT! They haven't made a new qualification, they're getting rid of old ones.

quote:

---

'm saying why would she bite the hand that feeds? It's a perfectly sensible reaction, but this doesn't make her an expert on the effects of AA except as it affects her directly--as a good thing. . . . I think it is a regressive policy that will eventually poison the very people it was intended to help and subvert its own aims in the process.

---

BS:

"According to this reasoning, women should stand up for themselves because they know their issues best, but they should not accept the results of standing up for themselves because that "belittling".

The problem that you seem to be having, which is also a problem throughout the left, is failing to understand why government, no matter how "progressive", does not work. Government is out of touch with the people it claims to represent. Women stand up for themselves, but that is not always reflected adequately in the actions of their government, who are after all just looking for votes, or to do the politically correct thing out of fear of ostracism.

I am a firm believer that problems of this kind must be adressed at the source, and affirmative action merely creates another layer of discrimination.

BS:

"What is "belittling" is encouraging women (and other minorities) while simultaneously, and cynically, assuming a posture as their moral superior, warning of the moral dangers you attribute to their initiative and success."

That's rich. YOU are the one who is claiming to speak for all women, claiming to know "what's best for them". You are of the opinion that it is impossible for a hand-out to be bad. On top of that, you are, knowingly or unknowingly, subscribing to the philosophy that the government owes women a job.

Yes, I would say that that is a patronizing and condescending attitude, and not surprisingly, it does not have the unanimous support of all women or minorities.

I

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Ian the second ]

quote:

---

Yes, I would say that that is a patronizing and condescending attitude

---

I suppose you'd know all about that, eh Ian?

quote:

---

you are, knowingly or unknowingly, subscribing to the philosophy that the government owes women a job.

---

quote:

---

On top of that, you are, knowingly or unknowingly, subscribing to the philosophy that the government owes women a job.

---

Your reasoning, Ian II, now resembles not just a pretzel but a dense ball of fuzz. I shall name this rare order of logic pretfus, a faux-Germanic (specifically, Viennese) clinical term meaning "utterly confused".

So. The actions of government do not "adequately reflect" what women (and other minorities) want because the politicians are looking for votes. By votes, Ian the Second, perhaps you refer to the right-wing variety, which would certainly explain politicians' inadequate actions on behalf of minorities, and their understandable "fear of ostracism". However, if you're referring to the significant block of votes the "civil rights movements" represent--if they are what you mean by "special interests"--then politicians must be defying their own self-interest when their actions do not "adequately reflect" the wishes of these many "politically correct" voters.

Thus, women ought to stand up for themselves, though government action may not reflect their aspirations because either politicians want right-wing votes (which is sensible), or, incredibly, because they want women's. Incredibly, because in the latter case the politicians' inadequate actions would be counter-productive to getting those votes.

But never mind that conundrum, you offer more:

quote:

---

(not) every project begun or supported by special interest groups is correct, representative of the interests they claim to be fighting for, or devoid of corruption.

---

This pronouncement really clinches your case, Ian the Second, deftly rationalizing for women the futility of the whole employment equity business. Apparently women's own collective aspirations are suspect. As usual, none of this is substantiated, which makes it easier for you to patronizingly assert that the women's "cultural movement" may be "incorrect", "(un)representative", and even harbour "corruption".

Well...just what are women to do? They can't stand up for themselves as you urge them to do, because neither their government, nor even their own collective initiative can be trusted to do the "right" thing. Which is your thing, of course. They're caught between the proverbial Devil (their own, and governmental, treachery), and the deep blue briny, which is, tra la la,

quote:

---

a (truly) free market

---

And speaking of the briny, by now you've run several very thick posts through the hull of the good ship Ian II; so many, in fact, I wonder if you'll be able to float much of anything around here anymore.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

If I may bring the level of pompus arrogance down a notch (my own and bittersweet's), I'm not sure if I've asked this before, but are there "sunset clauses" built into any of this legislation? Can anyone think of how this kind of legislation stands the test of time... or has history stopped happening?

Have you been listening?

There is NO LEGISLATION that makes Affirmative Action law. There are laws on human rights and equality, (try the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Human Rights Act) and those can be applied to discriminatory hiring practices.

AA has been challanged under the laws of Canada, and has not been found to be discriminatory.

But AA is not legislated, it is a policy choice made by employers. They make the choice to enforce that policy in order to diversify their workforce and standardize hiring policy.

A policy doesn't need a sunset clause, because it can be changed at will any time by the organization in question.

quote:

---

There is NO LEGISLATION that makes Affirmative Action law.

---

Exactly! (at least in Canada. Maybe it's enacted in law in some places though).

That's why the whole affirmative action debate is so irrelevant. AA is a bogeyman that almost doesn't exist at all, outside of the public sector. And even there it's probably only enforced to the very minimum requirements. There are likely many loopholes that still allow managers to hire their relatives and friends.

Which brings me to a point that I don't think has been brought up. AA could make the hiring process more fair even to white males.

Why? AA could make the hiring process more transparent and accountable. If AA requires the human resources department to extensively document why people get hired, it would make it a bit more difficult to just hand jobs to the managers' buddies on a silver platter.

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]

quote:

---

history stopped happening

---