After attending parts of the weekend Alliance convention here in Edmonton, I noticed a lot of mention about standing up for men who are said to NEVER get child custody because the laws are biased. When Liberal observers noted that too many delegates are 55 and over white men, they said the allegations of being racist don't scare them.

Affirmative Action is SUCH a joke to many. I know why, but I am certainly not used to definding it because of its growing negative connotation. Help!

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Sine Ziegler ]

I think the "Alliance" crowd simply doesn't accept the fact of original discrimination. So, of course they don't accept any remedy.

For those who DO accept the factual basis of the
case for affirmative action, but quibble about the remedy in some way, the question is which alternative remedy do they propose, and what have they done to obtain it.

Does the Alliance, for example, think that reparations should be paid in place of affirmative action, to make up for past discrimination?

If there had never been race and sex-based discrimination in the past, it would be possible to have a race and sex-neutral present.

Alliance types will trot out the rhetoric of "equality" in their arguments against affirmative action, employment equity, etc. But really this is code word for the status quo - and it reflects their refusal to understand that equal treatment is meaningless if the balance of power is still swayed in one direction.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: vickyinottawa ]

quote:

---

The main complaint seems to be that persons not actually qualified get jobs because of their ethnicity or gender or disability.

---

That was the complaint that began affirmative action in the first place. How many qualified people of color/women have been overlooked in the past? (That's my favorite comeback anyway...)

Prior to affirmative action, jobs were often handed out based on connections. Toronto's police and fire departments are obvious examples, as was the water department at Walkerton, where the two central employees were the sons of the former head of water services.

Even now, the head of Magna Enterprises is the child of the former head. Was that on the basis of absolute merit, or was it based on genetics?
And Mayor Lastman's son got the job as chief counsel for the Blue Jays from the previous Mayor, Paul Godfrey, who...is chair of the Blue Jays. Examples multiply infinitely.

If you can lift the required amount of weight, carry it over a wall, out a window, or wherever, fine. I don't care if you have ovaries or testicles, but the same requirements should be set for and met by both sexes equally.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Liam McCarthy ]

It always makes me laugh when I'm told that it isn't necessary to continue working to change gender and race biases in the workplace. I look at my own experience. I doubt any of my male colleagues have ever been told to wear tighter pants when meeting a funder. Or been referred to as "banker bait" at a trade show. Or been told that a better deal could have been made if they'd "been sweet" instead of professional.

It's still out there, whether a lot of good ol' boys think it is or not. Hell, they're the ones who are still doing this sort of thing, the big threat is that they'll have to change their ways.

This is an interesting comment, and one which reflects a misunderstanding, in my opinion. As people may know, I worked for six years as a "judge" or rather, a Board of Inquiry, hearing complaints under the Human Rights Code here in Ontario. I dealt with numerous cases of this kind.

Basically, as long as it can be SHOWN that a requirement is actually REQUIRED, the employer is allowed to discriminate, or select, on that basis.

Commonly, however, one finds that the requirements have not been well-thought out, and thus are not directly relevant to the job. A typical example is police departments which require an officer to be able to bench press X kilos as a condition of employment. Police have to be strong, it is thought.

Nowever, it turns out that older officers are not asked to redo the test every year, and in fact cannot meet that requirement. So you have a situation where only newer officers have to do the bench press.

A weight-lifting test may well exclude women. Why should older officers not have to lift that weight, but women be required to do so?

Also, in a multi-ethnic environment, there may be counterbalancing reasons to have ethnic persons as
part of the work force. In Toronto, to my knowledge the police force has two Tamil-speaking officers, and 300,000 Tamil speaking persons to police. Is the weight-lifting requirement not sometimes counterbalanced by other factors?

quote:

---

The only time I get really bent outta shape on these things is when it comes to emergency personnel where certain physical requirements are needed in order to do the job. When those requirments are "altered" to allow more women into the field, that's where I see a problem.

---

Amen. I know all feminists and "social activists" while being held at gunpoint or their house is burning down around them are sure to say;
"Gee, I hope they send a native/woman/other minority, even though they may be less qualified and physically equipped to do the job, instead of sending the best PERSON to save my butt."

quote:

---

Commonly, however, one finds that the requirements have not been well-thought out, and thus are not directly relevant to the job. A typical example is police departments which require an officer to be able to bench press X kilos as a condition of employment. Police have to be strong, it is thought.

---

Are you joking? Police (manhandling beligerent, knife-wielding drunks for example), fire-fighters (carrying heavy hoses up 30+ fights of stairs for example), EMT's (preforming the heimlich and CPR on a 250 lb man for example), don't have to be strong?
Your point about the older fire-fighters being re-tested is problably a good one. If you cant do they job, physicaly or otherwise, you shouln't be there. Especially if you're in the business of saving lives, one standard for all.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]

quote:

---

Amen. I know all feminists and "social activists" while being held at gunpoint or their house is burning down around them are sure to say;
"Gee, I hope they send a native/woman/other minority, even though they may be less qualified and physically equipped to do the job, instead of sending the best PERSON to save my butt."

---

Again, here's an assumption that the person hired through affirmative action is less competent merely because they are a minority or the "wrong" gender.

I taught role-play scenarios for the Human Relations Section of the RCMP's Depot Division for several years. I or one of my colleagues saw every graduating recruit in action during those role-plays. One thing is for sure -- If I'm standing at gunpoint, they can save the "cowboys" for handing out traffic tickets, I'd rather have somebody with the interpersonal skills come in to deal with it. Not that all the white males were "cowboys", some were very good at their jobs. But 95% did happen to be white males. Most of the female recruits and recruits of colour had developed different ways of dealing with such scenarios, and tended to do a much better job of defusing the situation rather than escalating it.

And the physical aspect of police work? It isn't necessarily size, it's technique. I've had a woman much smaller than myself (I was a size 2 at the time) make my partner eat the carpet, all 240 lbs of him. I had a lot of respect for those gals.

Women and minorities are not any less qualified for this kind of work -- they're simply less likely to be offered the opportunity.

quote:

---

And Mayor Lastman's son got the job as chief counsel for the Blue Jays from the previous Mayor, Paul Godfrey, who...is chair of the Blue Jays. Examples multiply infinitely.

---

For the ultimate such example, you need only look at the current occupant of the White House.

quote:

---

Commonly, however, one finds that the requirements have not been well-thought out, and thus are not directly relevant to the job. A typical example is police departments which require an officer to be able to bench press X kilos as a condition of employment. Police have to be strong, it is thought.

---

Perhaps the ultimate example of an irrelevant requirement, that in practice was used to exclude, concerned a fire department in the US I read about in the New Yorker (maybe it was Detroit, or Chicago -- can't recall for certain).

A requirement for joining was that a person be in good health, including having a good set of teeth. Fair enough, you might think -- you don't want applicants joining up just for the benefits, including free dental work.

However, this was interpreted to mean a full set of teeth, including back ("wisdom") teeth. Black people, it turns out, are just statistically less likely to have these than whites, one of those meaningless physical differences. So they basically couldn't get hired as firefighters, and a city with a majority black population had a nearly all-white fire department.

You could argue, maybe, that it's less important that a fire department be representative of its city than a police department, but still, this was the use of physical requirement in the service of unfair -- racist -- discrimination.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

If all police officers did this, and only this, you would be right. Suppose there is a call from a Tamil speaking man who says his wife is suicidal.

Do you want: A big strong white guy or a Tamil-speaking female officer?

Where I think the answer lies is looking at and rethinking what is needed to do a particular job. If Timally speaking people are need well then hire them. But hire them on the condition that they meet other requirements. I am sure that there is timal speaking people that can meet "Proper" physical requirements to do other jobs that may come about.

I agree why should you have to bench press x amount of pounds if you are only a desk cop or even a traffic cop. And the fact that older cops don't have to retest is wrong.

So again the answer is to re-evaluate what is needed and then hire the best available. If that is a white man or a black women so be it. The first step is to have a accurate job requirement. This will help both sides. Miniorties will not be discriminated against according to the tests and neither will the white male. Who ever is best suited to the job will win out in the end.

Of course this does not root out racists or those that hire family and friends. The racists will eventually be rooted out. I think a racists place in our society is slowly becoming smaller and rightly so, the sooner they are gone the better.

I believe it is wrong to attempt to address fundamental injustices by committing further injustices. By accepting that using discrimination to fight discrimination is necessary to address inequity, we are accepting the idea that some people's individual rights are more important than other's, and I firmly believe that human rights must be universal.

I think affirmative action is legislated discrimination, a quick fix that will address some inequities in the short term, leaving the underlying long term discrimination festering like an unlanced boil. It drives bigotry and racism underground where they are less easily identified and less effectively dealt with.

I cannot speak for the experience of people of colour, aboriginal people or the gay/lesbian/bisexual community, but it has been my observation that the most important victories in women's rights were won before affirmative action was implemented, and that we may have actually lost ground because of the backlash against affirmative action and the further ignorance, fear and hatred it has unwittingly supported. And no, I do not believe fear of backlash is a reason to stop pushing for change.

I agree with what Rebbeca West has said. I do believe it has caused a backlash. You want to educate and rid teh work place of inequalities but yet affirmitive action is no fair.

I think affirmitive action could be and may set a terrible precedence. What would happen if every wrong that was commited in the past was righted by an equally bad wrong?

quote:

---

If it has to be forced on people then so be it

---

Tell me, do you think that non-white immigrants and refugess ought to be 'forced' to live in racially and/or culturally homogenous areas in order to promote diversity? Suppose a family of refugees from the Republic of Congo came to Canada wishing join their relatives and community living in Montreal, but were forced to move to Thunder Bay Ontario because Thunder Bay didn't meet its quota for French speaking people of colour? Imagine how traumatic and isolating that would be for the family (even though it might be wonderful for Thunder Bay). I don't think this is something you, or anyone in this forum would support.

I'm not suggesting that we sit back and wait until things change by themselves. There are many, many ways of encouraging diversity and tolerance without resorting to methods that employ discrimination and intolerance.

quote:

---

Here in the peg you can't get hired as a fire fighter unless you have 20/20 vision. If the day after you are hired require glasses, well no problem, they have an eye plan. Weird eh?

---

This is actually somewhat common. In high school I was in the Air Cadets for a year (!), and was even interested in becoming a fighter jock (!!). This, however, was when my eyesight was beginning to decline to the bat-like quality it has to this day.

The word wasn't official, but I was told, more or less, that you couldn't go through pilot training without 20/20 eyesight, but that if, later on, you needed glasses you could keep flying.

The operative word here is "eventually". Above, Rebecca admits that progress is frustratingly slow.

I think this "eventually" means that another two or three generations will have to suffer the consequences of prior discrimination; to their parents and to themselves as young people.

The idea that one's great grandchildren will have a discrimination-free life, even if true, is no consolation to people whose lives exist in the present.

And I do not think it is an injustice to anyone to
take race or sex into account to make up for previous discrimination on the basis of race or sex. Even if we presume that some deserving white male has been "discriminated against" with respect to a job or jobs, it is unlikely that the said deserving male has not, in the past, obtained advantages which flowed from discrimination against others. That could have occurred when his teachers unconsciously estimated his abilities more highly than girls in the class, and gave him better grades, or because, when he entered a trade, he did not face the same competition because minorities had subtly been dissuaded from even applying.

Jeff, I truly do understand the mindset that feels passionately that somediscrimination must occur to address imbalances and inequities, and I know you probably won't change your perspective on this. I am equally passionate that we must be almost pathologically even-handed when it comes to the protection of individual rights, and I know I will not sway from that position.

Let me say that this is one of the few points of departure I have with a common position identified with the left. I do not believe in the sacrifice of the individual for the greater good (and yes, I'm aware that not all people on the left support this notion). In this I realize I am more libertarian, perhaps more to the right, than my fellow socialists. That said, I don't actually believe that, in the long run, affirmative action promotes the best interests of greater good anyway. I believe the good of both the many and the few are better served by other methods of diversification.

Oh, and another thing. I'd like to see the term "minority" used more appropriately. By referring to races and cultures outside the narrow perameters of Eurocentric culture as "minorities", we diminish their impact on the world, relegating them to a "special interest group", when in fact it is those of European origin who are the relative newcomers and are, in fact, a minority on this planet. This is more and more being reflected in North American culture. By referring to two-thirds of the world as a "minority", we're giving Eurocentrism power and, I think, are helping maintain the warped delusion of white supremacy.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

It should be all about merit.

Unfortunately, affirmative action is not about merit, it is about forcing employers to hire non whites and non males, regardless of whether there is a more highly qualified white male applying for the same job.

Under the more oppressive AA regimes, employers are penalized if they don't hire a sufficist number of non-whites and non-males. What is this if not legislated racism?

In their zeal to custom make a perfect little utopian society where everyone is equal and noone is ever disadvantaged, the social engineers forget about the real people at the end of these grandeose equity schemes. Not CEOS, Not rich people. But regular lower class, sometimes semi-literate Canadians.

For example, white boys from Newfoundland who come to the city looking for a decent job with, say, the government - only to find that the government has filled its quota of whites. Is his dissappointent and hurt any less palpable than a non-white who is told that she cannot apply because enough of her kind has been hired already? Is it any less wrong to treat whites this way?

Anytime someone gets anything, and another is deprived, based solely on their color, it is discrimination, plain and simple. Disguise it any way you want - say its simply righting the wrongs of the white people's forefathers, say that companies must reflect the ethnic makeup of society, whatever.

In the end its just legislated racism. A sign that says "Preference will be given to Women, natives etc.'(in other words, anyone who is not white and male), is no different than a sign that says "No Jews allowed in the Park".

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

anti-affirmative action folks always assume that only white men are competent

---

huh? I don't think this is the case. I am sure that many people who get jobs through affirmitive action are very qualified for the job. But it is the fact that some are not. As well it is a fact that a white man who is biggest demographic but of course anyone who is not a miniorty could of been just as qualifed and could have had the job instead.

quote:

---

I don't think this is the case. I am sure that many people who get jobs throughaffirmitive action are very qualified for the job. But it is the fact that some are not.

---

quote:

---

So deliberatly increase the chances of hiring an incompetant or twenty by forced hiring based on skin color/gender?

---

Please point out for me where I stated that white guys are all dilligent, qualified workers and the only incompetants are minorities. I'm arguing for hiring based on merit whether they are black, blue, white, yellow, male or female. Spin that any way you want. I know women and other "visible minorities" find it patronizing and insulting that they all are grouped into this mass of perpetual victims that all need a pat on the bum and a helping hand. Some do no doubt, but give them the same dignity and opportunity the rest of us have, not a leg up and a job.

If you are hiring people based on a prefferential skin colour, sex, marital status, shoe size, hair color, nose shape or any other bias criteria that has nothing to do with their ability to do the job... you aren't hiring on merit alone!! It's not rocket science, I didn't think. And if you are not hiring on the sole ability for said individual to do the job at hand, there's a greater chance he/she won't do it well! You can finger the "old boys club" mentality of protecting and promoting in corporate boardrooms all you want, but that's not reality for 95% of us.

If you lower physical/intillectual requirements to include preffered races and genders in certain professions you increase the odds that a) the job won't get done well (best case scenario) or b) someone will wind up dead or injured (worse case scenario)
]

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]

quote:

---

So deliberatly increase the chances of hiring an incompetant or twenty by forced hiring based on skin color/gender?

---

In your next post, I feel your logic leaps suddenly to surmise that standards are being lowered to hire females and minorities, saying:

quote:

---

If you lower physical/intillectual requirements to include preffered races and genders in certain professions you increase the odds that a) the job won't get done well (best case scenario) or b) someone will wind up dead or injured (worse case scenario)

---

Also, I get the impression you think white men are great dilligent workers from the fact that there is an unnamed comparison being made in your posts. For instance, you say:

quote:

---

So deliberatly increase the chances of hiring an incompetant or twenty by forced hiring based on skin color/gender?

---

quote:

---

If you lower physical/intillectual requirements to include preffered races and genders

---

As I stated, I work in an equality workplace. Standards are not "lowered" when an equity hiring is done. That is just part of the bullshit that anti-AAers spew. If anything, in the last equity hire the test was made even harder than the one given in the general hire.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: annie.victoria ]

quote:

---

So deliberatly increase the chances of hiring an incompetant or twenty by forced hiring based on skin color/gender?

---

Clarification from previous post:

quote:

---

If you are hiring people based on a prefferential skin colour, sex, marital status, shoe size, hair color, nose shape or any other bias criteria that has nothing to do with their ability to do the job... you aren't hiring on merit alone. And if you are not hiring on the sole ability for said individual to do the job at hand, there's a greater chance he/she won't do it well

---

I really can't articulate it any better than that. Either my command of the English language is lacking or you don't want to see my point. In either case, I'm tired and leaving it at that.

quote:

---

Therefore, I conclude, that you think non-whites and/or females are subject to lower standards than their white male counterparts in order to get jobs, thus more qualified, dilligent white males are being by-passed. You're saying it.

---

Why is it so hard to comprehend that when AA artificially limits the employee pool the quality of the employee will inevitably suffer? Lets's say you are an employer and there are 50 green women in the room and 10 blue women and you have to hire 20 women. But someone tells you 8 MUST be blue, no matter the qualifications of the other green applicants. Isn't it a mathematical, objective conclusion that the quality of the hired employee will be diminshed, when you are selecting based, in part, on qualities (in this case color) totally unrelated to the job? Hence, my "increased chance of hiring an incompetant" remark.
And it's not necessarily "qualified, diligent white men" that AA passes over. In Sk., half of all the gov't run casinos employess must be native. Thus potentially well-qualified women, asians, blacks etc... are automatically passed over.

Of course standards are lowered, in some cases. I was addressing specifically the practice of lowered physical standards for women in policing and firefighting jobs. (Should elderly white guys be required to re-test as well, of course) Dangerous and horribly short-sighted. I could care less about what race or sex a peace officer is, if he/she can save my butt.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]

I have more of a chance of losing a job to someone's cousin's best friend's sister than to a a woman or minority hired under affirmative action. Besides, who other than the government uses affirmative action anyway? (And nepotism still plays a part in government hiring too.)

The last few jobs I've had interviews for outright admitted afterwards that they gave the jobs to relatives or friends of someone who worked there, even though they said I have the skills, education and personality to do the jobs. These weren't low-skill low-wage jobs at small family companies, either.

Me neither. But I believe that the reality, overall, is that white males have received special treatment in the past as compared to visible minorities and women. Therefore, I do not believe they are being "sacrificed" in any way.

quote:

---

"I do not believe in the sacrifice of the individual for the greater good."

---

quote:

---

If a single, individual cell is diseased it is always best to sacrifice the body and save the cell.

---

quote:

---

I don't know why anti-affirmative action folks always assume that only white men are competent

---

quote:

---

But someone tells you 8 MUST be blue, no matter the qualifications of the other green applicants.

---

Now don't make me defend affirmative action again or I'll get VERY snippy

quote:

---

Nor me. If a single, individual cell is diseased it is always best to sacrifice the body and save the cell.

---

quote:

---

But I believe that the reality, overall, is that white males have received special treatment in the past as compared to visible minorities and women. Therefore, I do not believe they are being "sacrificed" in any way.

Taking turns is not unjust.

---

Sometimes the end justifies the means, when there simply aren't any alternatives. In the case of affirmative action, I believe there are better means that everyone can live with. Ways that don't feel so punitive.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

one of my strongest points is that affirmative action impedes long term progress, it doesn't accelerate it in any way except in a short-term superficial way.

---

If that is your strongest point, well... I'd refine my argument if I were you. I completely disagree.

Affirmative action creates a diverse work force where every person is able to move forward within the company regardless of their sex or race. When hired for my position in an all male work place I was interviewed by four of the whitest men you will ever see, and trust me, if they had had a choice I would not have got the job even though I passed physical and apptitude testing and was the most educated of 200 applicants.

One day I may be doing the hiring. THAT is the goal of affirmative action.

As I work with these men (Who have never worked with a woman before) we are all learning new skills to ensure the company can continue it's mandate of becoming an equal opportunity work place. THAT is the goal of affirmative action.

I don't see how this progress could be considered superficial or short-term.

When only 5% of all CEO's are women and probably less are other than white, I can't understand how anyone could NOT defend affirmative action...

Here is an example which may illustrate why I think it is:

Suppose a woman, X, was the most qualified for a civil service job in the year 1961. (That was the last year that the civil service gave "extra" points for war service, which heavily favoured males, who were drafted.) So, she didn't get the job, even though she was the most qualified.

It about not saying - her name is Audra and she is black and has an artificial leg, but instead saying

Most of the people who are qualified to apply for a position are probably going to be qualified to hold it. Or not -- but it mightn't be their paper qualifications that will tell you that.

Once you get a workplace full of workers, in my experience, they start shaking out into the same pattern everywhere: a few of the genuinely inspired and inspiring, maybe a few slackers at the opposite extreme, and then the majority of us in the competent middle, doing our jobs as well as our jobs invite us to do them.

quote:

---

If that is your strongest point, well... I'd refine my argument if I were you. I completely disagree.

---

quote:

---

Affirmative action creates a diverse work force where every person is able to move forward within the company regardless of their sex or race. When hired for my position in an all male work place I was interviewed by four of the whitest men you will ever see, and trust me, if they had had a choice I would not have got the job even though I passed physical and apptitude testing and was the most educated of 200 applicants.

---

Anyway, if the white guys who hired you did so out of fear, then it wasn't affirmative action that did it. It was the threat of being jacked up for discriminating during a hiring process. That's illegal. Laws protecting people against discrimination are the alternatives I have already stated that work far more effectively than affirmative action to ensure equity and diversity.

quote:

---

One day I may be doing the hiring. THAT is the goal of affirmative action.

---

Well, that's probably one of the reasons why we disagree. I have done the hiring. Several times for several organizations. I have written harassment and anti-discrimination policy, have been the lone woman on an all white, all male hiring commitee. I'm not talkin' out of my ass here. Most recently, I argued successfully for the hiring of a woman of colour. Not because she is of African ancestry, but because she was obviously, to me, the best qualified candidate. The other woman on the hiring team supported another candidate - a less qualified one - largely, I suspect, because she wanted to hire a person she felt more comfortable with, a white woman. No qualified men applied, BTW.

It takes a long time to change attitudes. Mostly, we can just change behavior, and in the process unfortunately drives racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes underground where they can't be adequately addressed. But we need to at least change that behavior because it will eventually lead to the change in attitude. Affirmative action creates an environment of fear and mistrust among the very people whose attitudes we want to change. That slows up the process of real change. Laws that protect against discrimination and promote equity without discriminating against those who formerly occupied positions of privilege, I believe, are less likely to bolster hatred and ignorance than affirmative action legislation is. If we don't apply anti-discrimination laws to ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE EQUALLY then the change in attiude is going to take alot longer than it needs to. It's already taking a hell of alot longer than it needs to.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

A woman was denied a job that she was best-qualified for, due to discrimination. She was, according to law, ENTITLED to that job. Several years later, the same job comes up, and she is no longer the best-qualified, only the second best.

Last equity hiring my department did was way harder than the general hire. Actually equity groups have to score better in tests than non-equity folks. That's discimination. No?

The equity hire if they didn't score over 80 per cent on the math, they were disqualified, but for the comfy white folks you only need to be 60 per cent good at math.

And I got my form, I can self-identify as a WOMAN. Like geeeee you can't figure that out?? I am actually thinking about self-idenetifying as something else........ maybe a MONEKY?

And my job would NEVER EVER come up for an equity hire. Its OK if they are clerks and mail openers BUT NEVER EVER BRING THEM UP. 'Cause then we have filled our quota ..... right?

Government is just too white and male.

annie, looking for sense in a nonsense thread

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: annie.victoria ]

quote:

---

I would love it if hiring was done by merit instead of by who you're related to or who you're friends with. Nepotism (or should I say "networking") is rampant in the workplace.

---

If I had my way jobs would be selected by random lottery in workplaces where previous evidence of hiring on the basis of nepotism was rampant.

If I had my way government jobs with the good pay and benefits would be slanted to anybody under the age of 35 as compensation for the reduced economic opportunities offered people of my generation.

End rant.

quote:

---

Affirmative action creates an environment of fear and mistrust among the very people whose attitudes we want to change. That slows up the process of real change.

---

The men I work with do not fear and mistrust me. They have learned over the past year and a half that a woman is as capable - or more so - as they are at doing the job.

As for my assuming the guys wouldn't have hired me on the basis of their sex/color, it isn't the case. I work with the same men that hired me and we have discussed these issues outside of the work environment. As for knowing I was the most educated applicant, I was also told this by the men that hired me. But I'm not here to defend myself or my comments. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm posting to offer my own experience and opinion.

And now, having seen their ability to learn from new experiences I can't help but wonder if these men had to work with a "coon" or "towel head" as they like to call people of other color and religion, if their attitudes might change in that respect too. Having seen how they have learned from my presence I assume they would.

Have you let it be known that that sort of language will not be tolerated in your presence?

What sort of people are you associating with anyway?

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

I gather from her resposnses, that Rebecca W. thinks that the second person is discriminated against. I don't. I think the woman remained entitled to the job that she should have been given at first.

---

quote:

---

What sort of people are you associating with anyway?

---

Now a point. Should we all go to Germany and demand they give us money for all the things they have done in the past? Look at all the money wasted in the war.

The point being that it is not the people that live in Germany now that caused this suffering so why should they suffer?

We talk of affirmitive action well here is another view. I know we give natives some privlages now that some of us dont' get but... why not just start putting all us white poeple on to reserves and give the natives our land and property that our ansestors stole from them?

My point is that when you start doing a wrong to fix a past wrong then its not fair to the people in the present. I am all for fair hiring on merit but not discrimination. AA is discrimination! However fair it might seem to some people. I just feel it sets a very dangerous precident!

quote:

---

But please answer my question, if we go back and correct this past wrong where do we
stop? I mentioned earlier all the wrongs that could be justly corrected by a equally fair wrong. Where do we stop? You lose your land and property cause it was stolen from the Natives long ago. I need an answer for this before I can consider AA. This is where I get stuck.

---

What you're talking about is an eye-for-an-eye approach to righting past wrongs. ***No one is suggesting that. It has nothing to do with affirmative action.*** If it did, it wouldn't involve legislation that a certain number of women, people of colour etc. be hired. An eye-for-an-eye would mean we would have to get rid of all the white men in almost every single profession and fill those jobs with women, people of colour, etc. Then we would have to have all these newly employed people agree to systematically exclude white men from all business spheres except those that are deemed appropriate for them: for example, secretarial or janitorial work.

And, of course, that would be crazy. But that's how it worked for women and people of colour for decades.

Jeff House and other posters seem to be saying that it is okay if affirmative action discriminates against white males, because white males had an advantage in the past. This seems grossly unfair to white males, born long after these injustices, who had nothing at all to do with historical injustices.

Why not say, "Yes, there were injustices in hiring in the past. But we will strive to be as objective, colour-blind and gender-blind, as we can possibly be.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Relyc ]

quote:

---

What sort of people are you associating with anyway?

---

I'm working with white men in a blue collar profession who have never had to work with anyone other than white men in their lives. When they say something offensive (coon or towel-head) I let them know. There was no one to do that before I started working there.

quote:

---

I know we give natives some privlages now that some of us dont' get but... why not just start putting all us white poeple on to reserves and give the natives our land and property that our ansestors stole from them?

---

Why not? Do you think maybe we'd understand those horrible, drunken "chugs" a bit better?

In my experience AA gives people a chance to work with people they have never related to before. The men I work with may be ignorant but they aren't immune to learning from experience. They have a new understanding of what it is to work with a woman and what it is as a woman to work with them.

Now that I have the job there are plenty of laws to protect me within the work-place, but they can't be considered effective if there is no one to protect.

A rich upper caste Indian comes to Canada after leading a life of relative luxury in India. Neither he nor his familiy has ever been the victim of racism or persecution. Once in Canada, he competes for a job with a man from a poor Newfoundland village who has come to Toronto with $200 in his pocket to start a new life.

Under affirmative action the employer could be obligated to give the job to the Indian man simply because of a perception, enshrined in legislation, that he is an oppressed minority and past wrongs must be righted. The Newfie, simply by being white man is guilty, and should just shut up and take his medicine.

Affimative action is legislation based on crass generalization and dependant upon stereotyping all white people as part of the greater oppressive majority.

Or how about this:

If someone killed my great great great grandfather and took his land and with that land made all his offspring rich.

Does his rich great great great grandchildren owe me recompense? If you believe in affirmative action, which essentially penalizes the ansestors of oppressors for the sins of their forefathers, then you must recognize my right to be compensated for unjust action taken by others against my forefahers.

When humans get caught up in a cycle of oneupsmanship and justice through retribution, sometimes its hard to distinguish the victims from the victimizers.

Just ask any Palistinian or Jew.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

Does his rich great great great grandchildren owe me recompense? If you believe in affirmative action, which essentially penalizes the ansestors of oppressors for the sins of their forefathers, then you must recognize my right to be compensated for unjust action taken by others against my forefahers.

---

For example, Toronto is a rather cosmopolitan city with large minority populations. Yet, the Toronto police force has a representation of, I believe, 17%. The force is making efforts, it says, to recruit more minorities to better reflect Toronto's diversity.

I am not saying (again I am not sure who) that you with the high paying secure job, should not have it, or that you are not qualified, even with out AA you could of gotten the job for all I know but... the point is that I am trying to make, is that you had an unfair advantage over the white male that applied for that job. He may or may not of been more qualified for the job, he may or may not of filled the job better then yourself, but for the same reasons as people like yourself (minorities) would not of had the job in the past the white guy is not getting it now. Is this fair to him? No he is suffering the same way everyone else did before him.

But to give a point to people surporting AA this white guy may go out and find another job much easier then say a miniority who may run into work place prejudice somewhere else. But the point that I am trying to make is this may be fair but it is a very sticky situation that sets a dangerous presadence. It is for this reason that I am against AA. I am sick of going in circles stating the same thing over and over so I will let it go but I understand the other side.

Too address someone else's statement that this is not an eye for an eye kinda a thing to do...well maybe you are right but it is a reaction which limits the number of jobs available to white men for actions in the past of prior white men.

I guess it almost goes back to a point I was making earlier that law does not take into accout humanity and is often heartless. In this case this would not be true. An interesting thing to ponder.

quote:

---

A rich upper caste Indian comes to Canada after leading a life of relative luxury in India. Neither he nor his familiy has ever been the victim of racism or persecution. Once in Canada, he competes for a job with a man from a poor Newfoundland village who has come to Toronto with $200 in his pocket to start a new life.

Under affirmative action the employer could be obligated to give the job to the Indian man simply because of a perception, enshrined in legislation, that he is an oppressed minority and past wrongs must be righted. The Newfie, simply by being white man is guilty, and should just shut up and take his medicine.

---

As is typical with such "arguments," yours is bolstered with hypothetical (made-up-on-the-spur-of-the-moment) just-so stories, and unencumbered by any actual knowledge of how affirmative action really works.

But a critical examination of affirmative action can only be meaningful when it is compared to the present system; if there are more "errors" or systematic abuses in that system, then affirmative action is preferable.

I see the individuals at the end of every hiring transaction, and will always judge them as such, based on their merit.

You seem to have no problem catorgorizing people into groups and favouring one group over the other, depending upon what you perceive society's needs to be. This is a recipe for disaster. I bet you would otherwise frown upon such crass generalization and stereotyping under different circumstances.

I thought generalizations were bad. Is this an exception? Why?

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

In one case individuals engage in reprehensible behaviour. Is the behaviour any less reprehensible when enshrined in law?

I think its worse - much worse.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

As is typical with such "arguments," yours is bolstered with hypothetical (made-up-on-the-spur-of-the-moment) just-so stories, and unencumbered by any actual knowledge of how affirmative action really works

---

I would question your certainty about how affirmative action "really works".
AA may be lot like communism. Lovely in theory, lousy in practice. Both of the cases cited, and similiar ones, would and do happen. The ridiculous generalization, behind AA, that ALL white males somehow have had it easy in life and ALL others have somehow been brutally oppressed and descriminated against, is a fallacy. Some of them have no doubt, but that an awfully broad brush to paint the many, many white dudes who exist in or near poverty or live paycheque to paycheque.

I would be for AA if it entailed giving equal
access to education and training to ALL under-privaledged people, not just the races and sexes the left cherry-pick. (Then they tell us it's not about "righting historical wrongs" other white dudes did?!?) Setting up hiring quotas isn't the way to go.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]

quote:

---

AA may be lot like communism. Lovely in theory, lousy in practice.

---

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]

quote:

---

I would question your certainty about how affirmative action "really works".

---

I have no such certainty, or really any good information. (The word "works" is a little ambiguous in this context -- I meant simply "functions," while you seem to mean "functions successfully").

My point was, neither do most critics of affirmative action.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

So how come those so voicferous on the evils of affirmative action offer no alternatives to discriminatory hiring practises?
How do we ensure the best candidate gets the job without any bias being shown?

---

WIng nut maybe my posts are too long and you did not read them!! I have stated many times the answer lies in looking at the creditals and qualifications of jobs and redefining them to exclude cultrual bias!

For example (and this is not the actual requirement and may not be the case but it explains my point)
The requirements to be a firefighter include that you need to be able to lift 400 pounds deadweight and have 20/20 vision and be 6'3. Okay? NO look at these requirements.. does the firefighter really need to meet all these qualifications? Are these unfairly bias toward hiring men?

I know this was kind of a bad example as firefighters should have to meet these requirements but it demonstrates a real problem with job descriptions and requirements. This is where the bias and prejudice starts.

Also I stated that another solution would be to either make or strictly enforce exsisting laws that prohibit bias and prejudice hiring. The problem is the people in charge of hiring. The solution is not to limit opertunity for those who want to be hired but to govern those who hire.

Your point on fire fighters is very good.

But it misses the primary point which you allude to when you say current laws. Which is, someone might be the most qualified but qualifications are arbitrary. Say a brown skinned women and a white male apply for the same administrative position. The brown skinned woman is imminently more qualified but the white male gets hired.

On paper, the law might say she has a case. But the person hiring says, "qualifications are but one criteria. It is important for the position that the candidate also have excellent interpersonal skills and be able to communicate with a wide range of people. We felt the candidate we hired was better suited to the position."

It could be total BS. It could be the truth. Who knows? Such criteria cannot be measured impartially. It is that uncertainty that makes all but the most clear cases of discrimination unactionable.

Say that person leads a blameless life, becomes the best qualified person for a job he's competing for. And then he's told, "No, I'm sorry. You ARE the best match, qualification-wise, for the job. But because your ancestors a. colonized the Americas b. participated in the Inquistion c. any of the above .... well, buddy, you gotta pay now. No job for you (at least not this time).

Can you see why such a person might be left scratching his head, wondering what HE, HIMSELF did to merit such discrimination. Do anyone honestly think society is best served by a socially engineered round of turns-taking when it comes to discrimination? No wonder resentment breeds in such circumstances.

Why not do the following: make the qualifications transparent and sound, forget about race, gender and ethnicity, and may the best person get the job. Many people have tried this, with success: it's called the merit principle.

quote:

---

Why not do the following: make the qualifications transparent and sound, forget about race, gender and ethnicity, and may the best person get the job. Many people have tried this, with success: it's called the merit principle

---

quote:

---

the point is that I am trying to make, is that you had an unfair advantage over the white male that applied for that job.

---

The point AA supporters and implementers are trying to make, is that the white male already had an unfair advantage when I walked into the interview for my job. Equal Opportunity hiring practices are not trying to even out past injustices but PRESENT ones.

quote:

---

the past is History -- we cannot use the present as an experiment to solve issues from the past.

---

Ride a bus in Toronto to get a glimpse of that city's diversity. And then take a walk through city hall, police, fire and ambulance halls, the offices at King and Bay, and the board rooms of the city's corporate culture and see how well that diversity is reflected. Then come back and tell me white males are discriminated against.

It is amazing to me how white males can be so upset and angry over an affirmative action program which has seen hiring of minorities, who make up like 50% of the city's population, increase to about 17% on the police (which means whites still represent 83% of the force) and even fewer in the fire department. And yet they never cry and wail over real employment discrimination.

quote:

---

how do you force people to be fair, equitable and decent. The answer is, you can't.

---

I aggree that this is the problem. I said enforce exsisting laws OR CREATE NEW ONES. I think the answer beside looking at the criteria is to educate people, in the end this is the only way.

New laws can be created, they can be more strickly enforced then they are now. I agree a more diverse workforce is the way to go. This is not my argument. Its just how are we going to get there. Trying to make a law to govern human decision making is in my opinion taking away freedom. Saying you have to hire x% of people from this ethnic or cultrual background is imoral. SO is the fact that many white bosses are prejudice toward these same people.

quote:

---

Trying to make a law to govern human decision making is in my opinion taking away freedom.

---

quote:

---

Yes, the poor persecuted white male. The world is awash with them driving aimlessly in their SUV's.

---

Take a trip to moscow or any east bloc town. See all the "white males"????? Gee they sure look privileged, don't they.

Such racist genaralizations is what causes genocide.

Jews are evil crooked shysters. Blacks are criminals. Whites are privileged oppressors.

Tell me the difference in those three statements. the intent is the same - to paint an entire race of people as all having the same qualities.

Wingnut, don't ever change. We need hypocritical radicals like you to show the world the dank stinking underbelly of the leftist mentality.

I would have been banned by now if I made such crass generalizations about people of a certain color or ethnic background. But ol' Wingnut subscribes to the house ideology, and will be left to fight the vast white male conspiracy another day.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

Take a trip to moscow or any east bloc town. See all the "white males"????? Gee they sure look privileged, don't they.

---

quote:

---

Yes, many whites are poor and oppressed in this world, but look who'd doing the oppressing most of the time: other white people!

---

quote:

---

Why not treat all races/sexes equally that haven't had the opportunity to be educated and succeed?

---

That will only come from policies like progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, investment in infrastructure, and more funding for education, training, social programs, healthcare, etc.

That's a much more substantial and permanent way of providing equal opportunity and reducing racism, sexism, bigotry, conflict and hatred. The rich white men in power don't want that do that though, because they have too much to lose.

Meanwhile they divert the attentions of working class/middle class white guys by turning them against women and coloured folks over issues like affirmative action, welfare, immigration, native land claims, etc., so they don't realise who's really screwing them.

AA is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the deep and widespread social, political and economic changes needed to foster equal opportunity and a healthy progressive society.

What drives the Left is the backwards glance, an attempt to right history's wrongs by ... you guessed it, discriminating against people in the present.

Their methods are clumsy, usually involving collective blame and collective punishment. Ironically, they heartily protest the use of these "collective methods" when it comes to any group other than white males. Yet what is Affirmative Action other than a form of racial profiling applied to the hiring process. What have these PRESENT applicants done? Nothing. What are they being punished for? That their ancestors MAY have been favoured in historical hiring situations.

This type of thinking encourages a backlash, as described by Susan Faludi in "Stiffed".

Perhaps I could take the Left more seriously if I ever saw, say, a lawyer of the social activist, human rights persuasion -- you know, the type of person who helps weaving cooperatives in Central America between bouts of drafting equity legislation in Canada -- if one of these people came out and said, "You know, even though I do good works, I owe my position to the hegemony of white males during the time I was hired. I therefore cannot, in good faith, keep my position." At that point, said person would hand over his/her position to a person from any "oppressed group" (take your pick).

Tip: don't hold your breath.

If you read my posts you will find I have argued AA has nothing to do with correcting past injustices and has everything to do with correcting present inequities.

It is your blinders that prevent you from debating intelligently.

You can only hire in the PRESENT. You cannot hire in the PAST.

You cannot fix a wrong in the PAST, by committing an injustice in the PRESENT.

There are many, many ads (check the Globe and Mails Academic Hirings section), where in no uncertain terms, it is stated that women, the disabled, and minorities are preferred, when push comes to shove.

Merit principle out the window: hello social engineering.

quote:

---

Actually, Wingnut, several people have suggested an alternative. It's a technical idea, but an idea that's been used successfully in many parts of the world. It's called "Treating People Fairly and Ignoring Their Colour, Ethnicity, Gender or Clothing Choices". Unfortunately, the idea is so simple and clear that the Left finds it hideous.

---

I refuse to believe the entire right wing population is so lacking in intelligence despite the evidence they continue to insist on presenting.

Your alternative is not an alternative. In an ideal world, that would be the Utopia commentators on the right say is only a dream, it would be perfect. But in the real world, the one we all must live in, discriminatory hiring practices are a fact of life.

Should you have an alternative to address the realities of this world, and by that I mean the real world of bricks and mortar and people of all shapes, sizes, beliefs and values, please provide one.

quote:

---

an idea that's been used successfully in many parts of the world.

---

quote:

---

But in the real world, the one we all must live in, discriminatory hiring practices are a fact of life.

---

Then he goes on to say:

quote:

---

Should you have an alternative to address the realities of this world, and by that I mean the real world of bricks and mortar and people of all shapes, sizes, beliefs and values, please provide one.

---

Well that begs this rebuttal:

Maybe it is you who should provide proof. After all, you are the one claiming that that discriminatory hiring practices are rampant that we need to beat them into submission with big stick legislation.

Please provide specific instances whan discrimination occurred. Also provide statistics on exactly how many whites are hired because their employer is racist against non-white applicants and how many were simply the better candidate. Please avoid ancedotal evidence like "Oh, look at this workplace - white men out number all other races - the employer MUST be employing discriminatory hiring practices".

I love the logic of some people. They support draconian legislation based on the premise that all employers are racist and all non whites need protection and then thay challenge their opponents to prove why this legislation is not needed.

Seems to me it is they who need to be a dooin' the proovin'.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

In contrast, it isn't hard to find instances of job postings that state "women, the disabled and aboriginals" will be given preferential consideration in hiring decisions. I have seen such ads in various newspapers (and the CAUT newspaper, the major source of academic postings in Canada as a whole). Wingnut, can you honestly say such hiring caveats don't exist?

Affiliation with a race, gender, handicapped group should not be a factor in a hiring decision, unless race, gender or being handicapped is a crucial element of the job requirement (ie. a commercial requiring a handicapped person; a movie requiring a black or female actor).

If you want to engage in social engineering, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to prove that such engineering is indeed warranted. However, like wage/price controls, rent controls, tariffs, quotas etc., these elements of social engineering (that the LEFT seems to love) tend to backfire.

Here's a real life situation: in Vancouver, Asian pharmacists are very common -- in fact, working in pharmacies, they can be found in numbers that exceed their percentage of the population in Greater Vancouver as a whole.

Would you say that this is a problem? That white males, females, handicapped people, aboriginals are disadvantaged, and something should be done?

Or might you say that for cultural, linguistic, whatever reasons, Asian people are somewhat attracted to the career of being a pharmacist. Looking at the real world, you might find that Jewish diamond merchants are very common in major world cities, or that blacks dominate the NBA.

Yet I don't think discrimination stops young, white males from being NBA stars, or diamond cutters, or pharmacists. There are other historical factors at work here.

In Canada, gender equity has been reached in various law and medical schools. But they didn't do it through affirmative action.

And Wingnut, a society whose work force does not reflect the population may not be ample evidence of discriminatory hiring practices. It might just be a society in transition, where many newcomers lack the necessary skills to compete on an even playing field with long term residents.

The answer is not to tilt the playing field, the answer is to allow some time for the newcomers and their children to gain the skills they need.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

I do prefer tougher no-nonsense laws with serious financial penalties for employers who do discriminate. And I do believe that law should allow for guilt to be determined by a preponderance of evidence rather than direct evidence related only to the case at hand.

For example, it might be impossible to prove that company A discriminated against applicant A because of immeasurable variables (i.e. "we needed a 'people person' and we felt the applicant was not the personality we were looking for"). But if it can be demonstrated that company A routinely hires from any specific ethnic group, or routinely excludes any specific ethnic group, despite applications from equally or better qualified applicants from within the offended group(s), then a finding of guilt would be appropriate.

And where there is such a finding, the offended applicant or applicants, can file civil actions for damages.

Thus double trouble.

The problem up to now is weak laws weakly enforced by besieged agencies such as the Human Rights Commission. Tough laws strongly enforced by a traditional enforcement agency (labour ministry or police service) would have more teeth.

As well, the law could be equally applied against any establishment owned by anyone of any ethnic background who engages in discriminatory hiring practices.

But this would all breakdown and be rendered useless if the government of the day was to underfund the enforcement branch in the same manner the tories now underfund the environmental enforcement branch. In which case we would be back where we started.

quote:

---

And Wingnut, a society whose work force does not reflect the population may not be ample evidence of discriminatory hiring practices. It might just be a society in transition, where many newcomers lack the necessary skills to compete on an even playing field with long term residents.

---

quote:

---

The answer is not to tilt the playing field, the answer is to allow some time for the newcomers and their children to gain the skills they need.

---

Oh I see until recently the population of Canada was composed of entirely white men.

Nice little assumption that all people of colour were born outside of the country. What to they call that ummm implicit racism I think. Seems to be a fair amount around.

I'm sorry but anyone who does not acknowledge existence of discrimination and racism in the present day is quite frankly clueless.

Yet another dubious assumption is that it is always the case of the "qualified" white guy against the "unqualified" person of colour or woman. Evidence for this apart from the friend of a friend suburban myth is sorely lacking. It's also implies that individuals of "minority groups" are generally unqualified or untrainable.

There was also an interesting comment refering to AA as being a case of the good of society against the individual. Does that mean that women and people of colour are not individuals there right to equal access of employment isn't relevant?

There is also the rather tiresome belief that change takes time and "those people" should just be patient. A highly questionable assumption to begin with.

Why should people wait patiently while they are denied the rights of citizenhip?

Also do you actually believe change just occurs spontaneosly? Sorry but it generally occurs due to actions designed to increase social justice such as Affirmative action.

quote:

---

Nice little assumption that all people of colour were born outside of the country. What to they call that ummm implicit racism I think. Seems to be a fair amount around.

---

Oh go take a leap, guy!! Anytime anyone advocates an idea or concept that doesn't pander or lean directly towards a minority, the fire-words come out. He's sure to be labelled a "racist", "nazi" or a "redneck" by someone on the left with nothing better to say. It's rather sad. I can't speak for Repunzel, but the way I read his post, there is nothing remotely racist in what he/she said. (Think : "New to the playing field" as in new to certain job markets. Not "You're brown you must be from somewhere else!" )
Nor has there been anything posted on this topic that unfairly and negatively stereotypes anyone.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]

quote:

---

Oh go take a leap, guy!! Anytime anyone advocates an idea or concept that doesn't pander or lean directly towards a minority, the fire-words come out.

---

What exactly was advocated?
Go take a leap yourself.

I asked your right wing compatriots to provide an alternative to affirmative action. They could not. Funny enough, I did. I seem to be the only one here advocating anything and it certainly does not pander to anyone.

Your buddy Rapunzel asked me a question. I answered and your buddy Rapunzel instead of responding to my answer wants to run off on a meaningless tangent to ensure he/she need not ever have to excercise his/her brain. Then your other buddy jumps in with with nothing more useful to offer than childish baiting.

Someone else responds to the bait and you tell him to take a leap. This thread, if nothing else, betrays a total lack of intellectual vigor on the part of the right. Everything is bait and nothing is substance.

Either you have an argument or go take a leap.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: WingNut ]

First, let's ask what the historical composition of the workforce and government had white males in it. I've got a set of stats for the USA, so here goes:

"White males make up about 34% of the population and have control of only 75% of middle management, 80% of the House of Representatives, 90% of the Senate, 99% of the Fortune 500 CEO's and of course 100% of the Presidents and Vice Presidents throughout US history."

quote:

---

I asked your right wing compatriots to provide an alternative to affirmative action. They could not.

---

I can only speak for myself but personally, this sounds fine to me:

quote:

---

I do prefer tougher no-nonsense laws with serious financial penalties for employers who do discriminate...
And where there is such a finding, the offended applicant or applicants, can file civil actions for damages. - WingNut

---

But then again, I was only arguing against hiring quotas and lowering job requirements (ie. police and firefighters) for the purpose of minority representation.

quote:

---

"White males make up about 34% of the population and have control of only 75% of middle management, 80% of the House of Representatives, 90% of the Senate, 99% of the Fortune 500 CEO's and of course 100% of the Presidents and Vice Presidents throughout US history."

---

quote:

---

it isn't hard to find instances of job postings that state "women, the disabled and aboriginals" will be given preferential consideration in hiring decisions. I have seen such ads in various newspapers (and the CAUT newspaper, the major source of academic postings in Canada as a whole).

---

You have no trouble using a phrase like "it isn't hard to find", but take great umbrage to WingNut's using a similar one:

quote:

---

a fact which cannot be disputed which is that women and minorities are under represented (and underpaid for that matter) in the work force

---

"It isn't hard to find" and "which cannot be disputed" could be substituted for one another without altering the meaning of either statement. Yet you assume unearned authority on the matter, gather up the full frail weight of your faux-indignation and pompously declare:

quote:

---

The accepted procedure when you assert something is to back it up with proof (not just hunches). Wingnut -- where is your example of white males being preferentially hired over others in Canada in the year 2002.

---

I was refering to statements that I believed were implictly racist. It should be understood that almost everyone(I'm not excluding myself) has prejudices and bigotry, a lot of which aren't even fully formed or in awareness. The majority of discrimination isn't of the bed-sheet wearing cross-burning kind it's beneath the surface. For that reason I feel it's necessary to examine assumptions and statements we make. That is also why I believe AA is important;implicit attitudes are much more difficult to challenge and the concept of "merit" can frequently mask discriminatory beliefs.

I mean what is merit. Excuse me if I'm unaware of the science of meritology.

Is merit a discrete measurable and operationally defined construct. I don't think so.

Is there a absolute positive correlation between qualification and job performance. Certainly not.

Is there such a correlation between experience and job performance. Again no.

There is also no evidence to suggest that women or "minorities" in whatever position are less competent in their work.

So to suggest otherwise I would say you are quite clearly talking out of your ass.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

You can buy the pamphlet for $45--guaranteed to win friends. Whether or not it influences people remains to be seen.

* Women continue to make up the large majority of lone parents.

* In 1999, 55% of all women aged 15 and over had jobs, up from 42% in 1976.

* The majority of employed women continue to work in occupations in which women have traditionally been concentrated.

* Women have also increased their share of total employment in managerial positions, as well as in several professional fields including doctors and dentists and business and financial professionals. In fact, women currently account for almost half the total workforce in the latter groups. At the same time, however, women continue to account for only about one in five professionals employed in professional positions in the natural sciences, mathematics and engineering.

* Even when employed, women are still largely responsible for looking after their homes and families.

* The average earnings of employed women are still substantially lower than those of men. Even when employed full-time, for example, the earnings of women were only 73% of that of what men made in 1997.

* Women make up a disproportionate share of the population in Canada with low incomes. In 1997, 2.8 million women, 19% of the total female population, were living in low-income situations, compared with 16% of the male population.

It seems to me that affirmative action with respect to addressing ethnic and racial discrimination is often used as a crutch to compensate people for negative personal characteristics they possess due to their cultural socialization or even their own personal capabilities, or incapabilities, as the case mey be.

For example, Chinese people have been victimized and discriminated against in Canada as much as any minority. But look at them now. When we speak of the need for affirmative action do we think of Chinese. No. They need no special programs or help. Because of their strong familiy values and work ethic they have carved their niche in Canadian society without the government having to beat their employers over the head with a big AA stick.

I will not mention any ethnic groups or races that, despite suffering no greater discrimination or racism in Canada have failed to achieve the same economic and personal prosperity as the Chinese.

So there is evidence that certain cultures and races do btter than others despite facing the same racial barriers.

So, maybe the best affirmative action programs wouldn't force employers to hire people against their own better judgement - maybe the best government investment would be to attack the problems where they start. Maybe the best programs would help people to be more employableby helping them build stronger familiy units and a better work ethic.

Honestly now, why is it that some non-white cultures thrive here in Canada while others need a "special" leg up year after year after year?

Maybe the problem isn't so much with society - maybe the problem is closer to home.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

I will not mention any ethnic groups or races that, despite suffering no reater discrimination or racism in Canada have failed to achieve the same economic and personal prosperity as the Chinese.

---

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

The white racist establishment seems to be a little less successful at oppressing people who adhere to certain values. Maybe the "victims' have more control over their destiny than their leftist apologists will admit.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

As well, the stereotype that all Chinese are good with math and sciences and are hard workers is just that: a stereotype.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

Alright then lance: Left-handed Albino squeegee kids.

---

Hmmm. Well, being left-handed and making your living working a squeegee don't constitute an ethnicity.

As for Albinos, it could be that they're disadvantaged, relatively, because there've been so few Albinian immigrants to Canada, except in the last five years or so. And those, as you say, have mostly been young. So they don't have the family connections and support networks available to other immigrants.

What do you call a really short Albinian?

A pigmentless pygmy.

(Trouble is I'm really not sure whether you are joking or whether you are serious.)

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

(Trouble is I'm really not sure whether you are joking or whether you are serious.)

---

You want evidence about how Affirmative Action is just so much bullshit? Here goes. Japanese Canadians have been, historically, one of the worst treated minorities in the country. Yet in 1991, they earned over $4,000 a year more than Canadians of British origins.

Women disadvantaged? Well, over the past 20 years, male enrolment at Canadian universities has been steadily dropping (in 2001, 62% of incoming first-year students at Univ. of Guelph were female).

Source: http://www.goodreports.net/purlon.htm

As far as affirmative action having no effect on the quality of hiring decisions, have a look at this article from the Simon Fraser News (1999, Thursday, November 4th, page 5) "Best Person Not Always Hired Under Affirmative Action"

Source: http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/protect.htm

In this article, the author appeals to reason (scarce commodity on the Left), and says that if the ratio of applicants for a math position is about 30/70 (female/male), as is often the case, but you arbitrarily hire on a 50/50 basis (or, in fact, if you favour female hirings), then you will, statistically, diminish the quality of the hirings. This is not prejudice, but reality. Otherwise, you would have to assume that women have a much, much higher ability in math, and that it is advantageous, in the extreme to preferentially hire them.

quote:

---

Affirmative action and preferential hiring are social engineering policies designed to benefit the social elites.

---

Thats half the story. the othr half is:

Affirmative action and preferential hiring are social engineering policies designed to punish white males.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

quote:

---

Affirmative action and preferential hiring are social engineering policies designed to punish white males.

---

quote:

---

As I see it, the phrase "social engineering," like the phrase "political correctness," is a vague and nearly meaningless term of art whose only use is to attempt to discredit something you don't like -- government action against inequality, in this case.

---

You wanna talk about vague and meaningless terms you should try: "government action against inequality"

quote:

---

You wanna talk about vague and meaningless terms you should try:

---

Hmmm ... seems to me you recently stated this:

quote:

---

The Fraser Institute? As Mr. Flemming would say, please return with an unbiased and legitimate source. Until then return to your usual baiting.

---

Obviously, Wingy, you DIDN'T read the links. "Simon Fraser News" is the official bulletin/organ/newspaper of Simon Fraser University (you know, the Arthur Erickson building high up on a Burnaby hill). You see, Simon Fraser University has nothing to do with the Fraser Institute -- too rather different places, actually.

The other link is to a book review site -- Martin Loney's "The Pursuit of Division: Race, Gender, and Preferential Hiring in Canada" is discussed on this site.

Now, for all I know, Martin Loney may have spoken at a Fraser Institute function. I simply do not know and, quite frankly, I don't care. I care about ideas, not knee-jerk reactions.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Bandersnatch ]

quote:

---

Women disadvantaged? Well, over the past 20 years, male enrolment at Canadian universities has been steadily dropping (in 2001, 62% of incoming first-year students at Univ. of Guelph were female).

---

I knew there was a reason I did my undergrad at Guelph.

Seriously though

Examnine the percetage of women making it to Phd level and into teaching positions;slightly different story.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rapunzel ]

Out of arguments and out of your depth you resort to stereotypes and nonsense. Which is where you came in.

Rapunzel, the reason no one is responding to this argument:

quote:

---

He hopes the insults will hide the fact
that he has not addressed any of the issues I raised such as why some ethnic groups need AA and others get along fine without it.

---

. . .is because it is embarrassingly obtuse. It assumes that "ethnic groups" are all one big homogenous blob, whose history, financial resources, cultural background and sociological status are undifferentiated. This betrays a willful ignorance and--say it again!--a not-so-tacit racism. "Ethnic minorities are all the same," is your assumption. But somewhere earlier, someone on your team mentioned the possibility of an upper-class well-to-do-person from India coming over here and breezing past a long line of deserving white males to greedily snatch away their employment opportunites. The point is clear: This person doesn't necessarily need affirmative action--they've got money and status giving them a leg up already. But what about a qualified ethnic Chinese with a Ph.d. in astrophysics with a thick accent and no business contacts whatsoever in North America? What about a qualified lesbian who is not interested in tarting herself up in order to put her co-workers at ease about her sexuality? What about a black man in the United States with it's appalling history of slavery, apartheid and systematic disenfrancisement of the black race?

So why do some ethnic groups need AA and others get along fine without it? Because all of these groups, and the individuals who make them up, are DIFFERENT. Different backgrounds, and most importantly, widely divergent sociogical factors are at work. The one thing they have in common is that they aint white men. And without affirmative action, that's where the problems start for a lot of them. Sure, some might not need it. But that's not a good enough reason for sytematically keeping the majority of them from certain job opportunities.

As for your S.F.U. News reference, there is an interesting rebuttal by an employment equity officer at that school (Jan., 01), who points out that the author, Doreen Kumera--a life-long academic, who surely knows the value of citing sources--neglected to provide the sources for some of her most important claims. Doesn't that charge have a familiar ring to it, Bandersnatch?

Employment equity may actually be in need of an overhaul, or even abandonment, as circumstances in society change. Despite the flaws in her argument, Kimura may be on to something. However, the fact that she omits disclosure of important sources is rather bothersome, if one's intent is truly to appreciate the situation better, instead of to build a bigger wall around a petrified opinion. I think Skadie's site is a lot more trustworthy. Let's you and I skim through it and see what we can find.

I'm confident that, from now on, you'll enthusiastically share this open-minded approach, Bandersnatch, owing to your bold declaration that

quote:

---

I care about ideas, not knee-jerk reactions.

---

quote:

---

Rapunzel, the reason no one is responding to your argument is because it is embarrassingly obtuse. It assumes that "ethnic groups" are all one big homogenous blob, whose history, financial resources, cultural background and sociological status are undifferentiated. This betrays a willful ignorance and--say it again!--a not-so-tacit racism. "Ethnic minorities are all the same," is your assumption.

---

Relyc, actually it is AA that "assumes that "ethnic groups" are all one big homogenous blob, whose history, financial resources, cultural background and sociological status are undifferentiated" and as such they all need a leg up to put them on an even keel with their white oppressors.

So you see, you are arguing against AA even though you didn't realize.

Are you gonna change sides now?

When you've got all the statistics up front of some moron MP, the time will be ripe to present your oversimplified solution to the drooling twit. Then HE, most probably a white man (and probably old, too - what about age AA?), or a whole group of him, can present your bill in Parliament, and you know what? It will pass. They, old white men, will decide whether or not to grant you your special priviledges as a black, latino, woman, gay, etc.

You see, there is a difference between "knowing that there was discrimination in the past", and knowing exactly what kind of discrimination it was and how it took place. Racial or sexual discrimination is a *cultural* phenomenon, and it is slowly but surely (like all cultural trends) on it's way out. Cultural movements take time. North Americans are not the first people to have to deal with - and overcome - overt or covert policies of discrimination. We are the first to have politicians desperately opportunistic enough to go along with the oversimplified solutions of AA advocates.

Affirmative action advocates plead with us to "remember the past". And I agree. But I think that there is a great danger in selling short the recent past - i.e. civil rights movements all over the world, which necessarily broke down (and continue to break down) the divisions and prejudices that existed between men and women, gays and non-gays, whites and non-whites, etc.

In short, I have a problem with those who would insist that an employer disregard a potential employee's qualifications to do the job, and instead fill quotas based on sex or race. That is sexism. That is racism. That is the opportunism of radical feminists and other special interest groups (which includes Congress).

I

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ian the second ]

On reflection, it seems to me the main benefit of this thread isn't so much that it supplies justifications for Affirmative Action, but that it offers a window into the reasoning that informs its most hard-line critics. There's value in understanding your staunchest opponents, even if there's no chance of agreement, because you're better able to communicate with more moderate critics. I've found that a majority are always relieved to discover they're discussing an issue with someone who, despite asserting a contrary opinion, is able to respectfully articulate and understand opposing concerns, especially aspects their opponents might be reluctant to express for fear of seeming racist or sexist. They don't really want to be in that camp, and appreciate an approach that shifts the dynamic away from me vs. you to something potentially more constructive.

In a word, salesmanship.

There's been no constructive criticism of AA on this thread; every critic has wanted to get rid of it altogether. The rationale is always one and the same: that qualified white men will be the victims of a monolithic, inflexible social directive that favours unqualified minorities. This is an extreme position, and it reflects an extreme bias--in fact, the same monolithic, inflexible attitude that AA was designed to compensate for. Most people would be ashamed to confess it.

The more likely scenario is qualified white men occasionally being passed over in favour of equally, or better, qualified minorities. Those white men will have relatively more alternatives, and chances are they won't have to compete with equally, or better, qualified minorities elsewhere, even if AA remains a constant.

There's been one other consistent complaint about AA on this thread: that it's out of step with the pace of progress. Two examples, from two different posters:

quote:

---

As each year passes we grow into our multicultural clothes. Best we just let society develop on its own without zealous quasi intellectual socialists legislating our behaviour. It might take a little longer than you would like, but I bet the outcome will be far more desirable.

---

and

quote:

---

Racial or sexual discrimination is a *cultural* phenomenon, and it is slowly but surely (like all cultural trends) on it's way out. Cultural movements take time.

---

I remember hearing the same argument from white people in North America when black South Africans were pressing for equality and the dismantling of apartheid. The argument held that the blacks couldn't handle the responsibility of full participation in a democracy because they hadn't earned it by proceeding slowly, the natural way, like the whites' ancestors, or like North American blacks supposedly had. Of course, the argument was motivated by racism, and the two examples above reflect the same quality of thought.

Bottom line, obviously forget about defending AA to those with extreme, shock-proof attitudes. Life is short. But you may find you can get leverage with the majority of critics who operate in the mainstream if your approach balances assertiveness with an understanding of opposing concerns that's as clear as your own. Most people don't like to seem inflexible, even if they start out that way, because they expect the usual confrontational style. Once they feel understood, people often relax, and you can steer the situation to a constructive dialogue, rather than assuming a purely defensive posture that always ends in frustration. And the goal ought to be realistic: don't expect to sell anyone right there on the spot. Planting seeds of doubt is enough.

quote:

---

When Liberal observers noted that too many delegates are 55 and over white men, they said the allegations of being racist don't scare them.

---

If allegations, or implied allegations of racism were made immediately, instead of simply "noting" the candidates' race and age during the course of a constructive discussion, then of course the Alliance members would claim they're not "scared" of such charges. I would suspect that most are scared, actually--deep down--but like anyone, they'll put up a bold front when they think they're under attack.

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

quote:

---

The more likely scenario is qualified white men occasionally being passed over in favour of equally, or better, qualified minorities.

---

I would argue that if a minority applicant is better than the white applicant, and you don't hire the minority applicant, you are violating the merit principle (and being very stupid).

quote:

---

one's skin colour, whether it be black, white or in between, should never be the deciding factor

---

Precisely!!!

But skin color is and has always been a deciding factor. Whether we know it or not (or whether we can admit it or not) we favor white men over anyone else.

Although there are plenty of those who prefer to be oblivious to this fact, given the option between white and black, we would choose white. Given the option between male and female, we would choose male (unless we're hiring a secretary or a nurse).

So, given the option - we don't get to choose. The choice is made for us by the Affirmative Action policy.

Affirmative Action is only a way of making sure our sometimes unconscious, always inherent biases and prejudices don't favor the white male any longer.

quote:

---

Affirmative Action is only a way of making sure our sometimes unconscious, always inherent biases and prejudices don't favor the white male any longer.

---

If circumstances in our multicultural society still favour a single, dominant type--white males--if societal assumptions still stupidly and routinely grant one type the benefit of the doubt in "toss up" situations--then there is no incentive to hire minority candidates, given that the dominant type is likely to be doing the hiring. AA is designed, ideally, to compensate for that bias.

I've got some experience with the casting issue, Bandersnatch, mostly in script development. It's the ideal situation to observe just how strong the cultural bias really is. Most scripts don't specify race in lead roles at all. Theoretically, minority actors or actresses would do just as well as their white counterparts. However, undefined lead roles are assumed to be white characters--which is quite natural, since most writers, directors, and casting agents are white. Hell, being a white male in the business, I've got the same presumption. So casting often reflects that. The entertainment industry hardly suffers from heavy-handed "social engineering"--while minorities are indeed making visible inroads, there's still some distance to go. A trip to the cineplex is the quickest confirmation.

Just don't get me started on the age/beauty bias...

"Racial or sexual discrimination is a *cultural* phenomenon, and it is slowly but surely (like all cultural trends) on it's way out. Cultural movements take time."

"bittersweet" replied:

"I remember hearing the same argument from white people in North America when black South Africans were pressing for equality and the dismantling of apartheid. The argument held that the blacks couldn't handle the responsibility of full participation in a democracy because they hadn't earned it by proceeding slowly, the natural way, like the whites' ancestors, or like North American blacks supposedly had. Of course, the argument was motivated by racism, and the two examples above reflect the same quality of thought."

Bittersweet, I wonder what "quality of thought" makes you so confident that I am racist? You have oversimplified my viewpoint, implying that I don't think that black people can take on the "responsibility of full participation in a democracy". I have not said or remotely implied such a thing, and you are making an obvious attempt to defame my character, even though you know nothing about me. You don't know what nationality I am - if I'm black or white, or even whether or not I'm a man or woman (I can only insist that I'm using my real name on this forum - unlike you). I can only hope that enough people carefully read my previous post and can judge for themselves. I also hope you don't make these kinds of pronouncements alot, because someone could end up knocking your block off one day.

Your point about "taking the full responsibility of participation in a democracy" falls flat, because part of what I was getting at was that AA is an AVOIDANCE of precisely that. It has been fueled mainly by opportunistic politicians, trying to get the "black vote" or the "women's vote" or the "gay vote".

But segregation, of the type seen in every election in various parts of the U.S., where blacks or latinos are prevented from voting due to "bureaucratic errors" and occaisionally outright police intimidation, continues. Who's adressing that? A lot fewer people than are adressing the alleged discrimination of employers.

In my opinion, initiatives such as Affirmative Action also breed contempt and resentment for these priviledged "underclasses" by everyone who's not them. How would you feel if you lost a job that you were more qualified to do to a person who was less qualified, but was the "right" skin color? Keep in mind, too, that skin color is not a direct, predictable indicator of social class. There could be a desperately poor, very qualified, white person, losing a chance at a position that he or she had worked for many years to attain, to a priviledged, underqualified and unenthusiastic but nonetheless accredited automaton, who happens to be black, simply BECAUSE he or she is black. This is not an extreme example, it's a reality, and it occurs all the time.

If you doubt that initiatives like AA are merely vote-getting issues that play upon the sympathies of white neo-liberal handwringing PC police, why not look at the the pronounced lack of other initiatives that COULD be helping get kids out of the ghettos, stop dealing and doing drugs and committing violent acts in order to survive, but aren't there, because they aren't as sure-fire election issues as Affirmative Action. The proof is in what still ISN'T being done. In that you can clearly see what the REAL intentions of the legislators of AA are.

I

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Ian the second ]

quote:

---

How would you feel if you lost a job that you were more qualified to do to a person who was less qualified, but was the "right" skin color?

---

quote:

---

But I think that there is a great danger in selling short the recent past - i.e. civil rights movements all over the world, which necessarily broke down (and continue to break down) the divisions and prejudices that existed between men and women, gays and non-gays, whites and non-whites, etc.

---

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. It was the dedication of the "civil rights movements" that brought about the principle of employment equity that you deride. The only meaningful distinction between "civil rights movements", or "cultural movements", and AA, is that AA was a creation of these same movements, a tool designed to accelerate the process of attaining equality. 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".

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. 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. Curious bedmates indeed, Ian the Second.

You can't expect anyone to take seriously your concern about segregation, or the plight of ghetto kids, when one of your central justifications for criticizing an initiative designed to overcome inequity is an insistance that "cultural movements take time", and your evident satisfaction that discrimination against minorities is currently "slowly but surely on its way out". Following that logic, the notorious "cultural movements" that created an initiative like AA in the first place are out of step with the natural, slow and sure, pace of progress. Ghetto kids will have their day, "slowly but surely", but oughtn't to benefit from an initiative the "civil rights movements" you admire won on their behalf, that might get them there faster.

The degree of satisfaction with the pace of progress always depends on whose watch is keeping time.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

"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?