I don't doubt that this is sometimes true, especially of quota programs, and sometimes matters.

But does it always matter? How do we measure "qualifications," and how much faith do we have in our conventional measurements?

I have worked and studied in a number of different companies and schools on two continents. I've taught at U of T as a TA, and at a community college. I've edited the literacy-challenged and PhDs (not necessarily such distinct categories ). And everywhere I've worked or studied, I've run into the same range of accomplishment.

That is, anywhere I've ever worked, there have been two or three people most of us would have agreed had something special -- genius? talent? maybe just a more singular focus than the average? And there have always been a few, um ... well, maybe they're just slackers, or they have bad attitudes. And then there've been the rest of us, the competent majority who do their work well enough, who make their contributions, but don't especially shine, maybe because there are other things they care about too ...

I've seen that full range among the lofty members of a graduate department at U of T. I've seen it among some last-chance school-leavers at a community college. I suspect that if we could get the twenty leading theoretical physicists in the world into one room and chat them up for a few hours, we'd discover the same full range -- a few bona fide "geniuses," a pretentious faker or two ... and a bunch of hard-working, normal guys and grils.

To me, this easily replicated observation is a challenge to those who fetishize the issue of whatever "slightly better qualifications" some candidates may sometimes have, on paper. What do others think?

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: skdadl ]

And not only that, but those "personal attributes" have always been highly subjective, and have been the basis for which so many men have been hired over just as qualified women in the past - just being a man was a higher qualification. The thing is, it was unspoken (and remains unspoken, because the same bias is there now for management type jobs). Typically feminine cultural attributes like consensus building as opposed to authoritarianism can be seen as being wishy-washy in a woman. But if she's authoritarian, then instead of being "goal-directed" as men would be, she would be a ballbuster.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Twilight-Cedar ]

And Michelle is also quite right about certain talents being "subjective" -- meaning, if I understand, that judgements about whether or not a person has them are necessarily subjective.

Despite this, what I think has been happening more and more of recent years is an attempt to eliminate subjectivity from very many decisions, hiring decisions included. I see this in the increasing pressure for school testing, in "zero tolerance" and other such rigid policies, and in the greater prevalence, at least according to some US sources, of things like polygraph tests, drug tests, and long "psychological" quizzes for prospective employees.

It has something to do, I think, with the fetish for science and technology. People believe that because these things are quantitative, they are nothing but quantitative (quite wrong), and, therefore, that quantification is by definition scientific, and thus immune from human error (also quite wrong).

This is kin, of course, to the Taylorist fantasy: break down every job into small enough parts that anyone can do them, and you eliminate contingency and the human element.

But an issue more interesting here than a gloomy public policy of national standardized tests as a precondition for entering any level of education (negative utopia if there ever was one, and it's being enacted!) is the issue of more complex, "real" standards of excellence. What constitutes a publishable work? What is an MA or PhD thesis that meets the academic criteria of excellence? What is a significant contribution to the current debates within a discipline of knowledge? (And I won't even dare tackling What distinguished *real* artistic talent from a dilettante. Or the history of the concept of "genius")

Feminists here would be the first to know that the "objective" standards of excellence have often been a disguise for maintaing the privilege based on gender, class or race. At the same time, though, I would not join those who call for the complete demise of all possible standards of excellence, and abolishment of all forms of hierarchy in educational processes. Bildung -- or there's a nice English word for it, edification -- could never be fully democratic. I'd dare say: And it's a good thing, too. In order to enter a process of knowledge, we need to acknowledge that we don't know. And then perhaps when we're near the end, if there is such thing, we can proceed to deconstruct and destruct and reconstruct if need be. And "kill the teacher."

I find it interesting that it appears you have a problem with a woman questioning an unfair practise, yet you have no similar problem when a man who thinks he is a woman ( I'm sure there is a song in there somewhere ) does the same.

quote:

---

When it comes to forest fire safety, I don't care about social engineering. Whether they be female, male or anything else, I want the fittest, ablest, smartest forest fire fighters out there.

---

quote:

---

I made a serious post up above there, see?

---

Backwards, because if forces us into gender and racial profiling. As a member of multiple minority groups who never the less is white and male, I find this kind of profiling distasefull. I don't want to wear the Jewish star, I don't want to have the immigrant licence plates, I don't want to have to explain why my brother is black. Nor do I want to be counted as a white male when my organisation does it's equity audit. The form would have to be ridiculously detailed to acurately profile my ethinic background anyway, thus I would have to check boxes that I don't really feel describe me.

We all know that the word "minority" is out of favour with the Affirmative Action crowd, because equality is not strickly unfair along minority/majority lines, so now terms like "Equity seeking groups" dominite Equity Policies everywhere. Is there a group that does not seek equity?

I want to seek equality, but equality is not achieved by gender and racial profiling.

Affirmative Action is Neo-liberal because it comes from an attitude that there is a lack of jobs for minorities, rather than a lack of wealth.

I don't want to work for a racist company because they were forced to hire me! I don't want my skills and effort to benefit their bottom line!

Nobody needs a job. What people need is a living, people need to be enfranchised into society, people need a share of society's wealth. A job is not the only way to achieve this.

If our society's institutions are dominated by white men, it is because white men have a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and thus a disproprionate amount of influence over our institutions.

Affirmative Action forces these institutions to hire "Equity Seeking Groups."

On the surface, this seems like a good idea, but taking a labour point of view, forcing these bigoted institutions, such as the corporations, to be diverse in their hiring practices simply benifits these institutions by allowing them to exploit the contributions of workers without actually changing their bigoted attitudes.

What it does, is it keeps these broken institions alive, despite themselves, and keeps the Old Boys Network alive, because outside of tokenism, control of these legacy institutions always stays among the Old Boys.

Therefore, though it's intentions are good, Affirmative Action works against its cause by preventing these bigoted legacy instituions from callapsing as a result of their gross stupidity. And by preventing new diverse institutions, founded on real, unbigoted, values, from competing against these old dinosaurs and pushing them into the dustbin of history.

What we need to do is break down the barriers preventing new progressive instituions from replacing the old regressive ones. This is done by fixing the Wealth Distribution problem, not with wage slavery, but rather with true equity: Gauranteed Annual Income is a good start.

With a livelyhood gauranteed, good people will simply stop patronizing and working for bad companies, but rather will provide the market and the labour for good companies to emerge.

Bad companies will be forced to change, not because they are legaly forced to, but because they realize their mistakes and know that good companies, who realize that people's value are not linked to there gender or racial profile, are poised to take their places.

Also, lack of eduction, child care and other factors that keep the poor poor need to be addressed.

Affirmative Action merely props up the status quo, and thus works against equity.

It is no surpise that Affirmative Action is so popular in such racist strongholds as the the USA.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Quirk ]

Quirk says that he doesn't want to work for a company with an ideology which excludes him. But the reason for affirmative action is that MOST companies used to have this kind of belief system in place, at least with respect to women, and those discriminated against did not have the option of getting a similar job elsewhere.

I do not think affirmative action IS popular in the United States, at least among white males like Quirk. But he is right to assert that it is common in countries with racism in their cultures.
It is common because it is a necessary corrective.

quote:

---

But, let us say that a company refuses to hire women as accountants, because of some belief that "women are bad with figures".

---

Then we should allow this company's stupidty
to drive it out of business and allow another, smarter one, to take it's place.

quote:

---

Quirk says that he doesn't want to work for a company with an ideology which excludes him. [...] women, and those discriminated against did not have the option of getting a similar job elsewhere.

---

The reason that somebody needs to have a job they don't want is because our society is not equitable, our weatlth is not fairly shared. Nobody should be forced to take a job they don't want.

quote:

---

at least among white males like Quirk.

---

See, even you are profiling me to have the interest of white males at heart, when really I have the interest of Jamaican Raised, Ukrainian Jewish Imigrants at heart, but that is not likely to be a box I can check on the form.

quote:

---

But he is right to assert that it is common in It is common because it is a necessary corrective.

---

Care to back this up? Where has it "corrected" anything? In order to make this claim you will have to show a correlation between affirmative action and a real increase equity, and issolate it as the cause of this increase.

If affirmative action works, then why are the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer in the USA, where affirmative action is the law?

quote:

---

So, even though a guaranteed annual income would be nice, it wouldn't solve the problem of unfair and irrational exclusion of some groups from the workplace.

---

This is the most recent conservative argument against affirmative action. The answer to it is:

1. If a group has been the object of discrimination in the past, racial profiling INCREASES the negative discrimination by continuing it. Police profiling results in arrests and prosecutions which are a result of race alone.

2. Affirmative action towards groups which have suffered discriminations MAKES UP FOR past discrimination.

3. It is impossible to make up for past discrimination without identifying the group, and using the same definition which was used for the original acts of discrimination.

4. Racial profiling is not forbidden to police anyway, when it can be shown to be societally useful. Example: People wearing Arabic dress are found getting on planes in four separate places, wearing grenades. Should police be told to pay special attention to people in place # 5 wearing Arab dress? Does the short-term discomfort in this case overcome the likely societal benefits?

quote:

---

2. Affirmative action towards groups which have suffered discriminations MAKES UP FOR past discrimination.

---

If it is a zero sum game, then there is absolutely no way of giving an advantage to the deprived without taking an identical amount away from those who have previously had an advantage.

Slavery is a bad example, because we all recognise that slavery is wrong per se.

I do not favour slavery for anyone. However, if A
has had a SLIGHTLY easier time obtaining employment in the past because of discrimination against B, may we now cause A to have SLIGHTLY
greater difficulty in obtaining employment because of past advantages obtained from exclusion of others from the employment pool?

So, even though a guaranteed annual income would be nice, it wouldn't solve the problem of unfair and irrational exclusion of some groups from the workplace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quirk responded: "Sure it would, by as I said, allowing them the freedom to provide the market and labour for more ethical companies."

This response presumes that there will always be ethical companies. Further, it assumes that consumers will know which companies discriminate, and will punish those companies.

To me, this is market naivete. Most products come
from faraway, for one thing. Take for example, Saudi oil. They discriminate against women. Does the market automatically impoverish the Saudis because they discriminate?

If not, what market mechanism within Canada would insure that the uranium industry, say, or potash corporations, would not discriminate?

A second point to be made is this: the market reflects the inequality which Quirk rightly decries. In the market for newsprint, Conrad Black's zillion pro-discrimination votes outweigh
anything Quirk and I will ever be able to muster.
And that is not only for newsprint, where we might mount a boycott, however useless. The market in many items, like $20,000. watches, is unaffected by what I think, or what Quirk thinks.
If those who buy diamond watches don't give two hoots about employment for blacks, the market will never change that discrimination.

quote:

---

Nobody needs a job. What people need is a living, people need to be enfranchised into society, people need a share of society's wealth. A job is not the only way to achieve this.

If our society's institutions are dominated by white men, it is because white men have a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and thus a disproprionate amount of influence over our institutions.

---

-- I couldn't agree more. I just don't see that anti-capitalist politics of any kind automatically also address the issue of discrimination against distinct groups of people. Historically, quite the reverse has been true. The New Left of the 1960s, for example, was notoriously, sometimes grossly sexist -- I still maintain that one of the main reasons women on the left finally began to organize in the late 1960s was ... men on the left. *a half-winkey there ... maybe*

quote:

---

This response presumes that there will always be ethical companies. Further, it assumes that consumers will know which companies discriminate, and will punish those companies.

To me, this is market naivete. Most products come
from faraway, for one thing. Take for example, Saudi oil. They discriminate against women. Does the market automatically impoverish the Saudis because they discriminate?

---

This is equivicating jeff, no labour laws passed within Canada, can effect the labour conditions of women in Saudi Arabia.

My article clearly examins Affirmative Action, giving the poor jobs. vs wealth distribution, giving the poor weatlth, not issues of global labour standards wich is certainly not addressed by Affirmative Action either.

My argument being that giving the poor jobs simply helps the bad companies survive and leaves control of these companies in the hands of the same Old Boys that have always controlled them. Giving the poor wealth, allows them the freedom to create the market and labour for good, new companies, and to have control of these new companies.

I'n not sure how you arguments adress any of this.

Q. Will there always be ethical companies?

A. Yes, provided there is a market for them.

Gauranteed Annual Income ensures the market place for these ethical companies. And also, along with education and child care, the labour for these companies.

quote:

---

If not, what market mechanism within Canada would [...], would not discriminate?

---

By discrimination you mean prejedice, I dislike the term discrimination in this context because an employer should be discriminating, if they are not, they will wind up with a lousy workforce. Now, if they are discriminating based on nonsensical 'qualifications' such as racial or gender prejudice, which do not affect the performance fo the worker, they are stupid and this self-imposed hiring limitation will be a competitive disadvantage. This disadvantage is the market mechanism you are looking for.

quote:

---

A second point to be made is this: the market reflects the inequality which Quirk rightly decries. In the market for newsprint, Conrad Black's zillion pro-discrimination votes outweigh
anything Quirk and I will ever be able to muster.

---

This is precicely why Wealth Distrubtion is what we should concern ourselves with. Not "forcing" dumb rich guys to get even richer by exploiting the skills and efforts of those within "Equity Seeking Groups" against there will.

quote:

---

I agree with Quirk that affirmative action is not revolutionary. In that sense, it is liberal. It won't change the deep structure of society.

---

What is your argument then? If you agree with me here, then the only remaining ground for dispute are practical issues of what compromises need to be made in the interum as we work towards more revolutionary models. This is obviously not the spirit of my article, since my article does not offer a plan to get us from here to there, it merely says that I support one aproach versus the other and exlains why. What is your dispute?

quote:

---

But it will provide a fairer distribution of decent jobs.

---

While keeping the same power elite in power.

quote:

---

I recall a time when blacks were not allowed on television in the USA, and when the only jobs they were allowed were sleeping car porter and maid. So, the new black middle class, small as it is, seems like progress to me. And to many of them, too.

---

Really? Progress? In the USA, 1/3 of African American males end up spending some time in Jail. And most of the rest live in poverty, with no access to education, health care or child care. The choices they face are basicaly these: Jail, Being a hired thug for the military, or Poverty. Or oh yeah... if they kiss enough ass, work twice as hard, and conform three times as much so as to not cause any waves, they can also become a token for a racist company. Hooray!

First, wealth distribution is what social programs of the last 30 years were all about. And while these programs worked wondefully in many cases (and quite poorly in some others) they have still failed. Not because the programs themselves were faulty but because those with wealth and the corpoartions they control have successfuly rolled back most gains and have there eyes set on the few remaining: medical care, pensions, etc ...

There has been talk of a guaranteed income. But such talk is quickly shelved. In the current economic environment it is simply a no go.

What lies at the base of Quirk's argument and therefore undermines his entire thesis is the concepts that "good people" will stop working for and patronizing "bad companies" that then must change by becoming "good companies."

First, he presupposes that the average earner today is not a "good person" even if he/she works for a living in a blue or white collar environment. In fact, such people do exist. Whether they are the blue collar workers of Oshawa and St. Thomas or the white collar workers and professionals of Toronto. And yet in all these communities Sprawl-Marts and McCompanies continue to sprout up and thrive. Because as capitalists have discovered, people might believe one way but will spend quite another. There is no evidence that poor people with a guaranteed income will spend or behave any differently.

The good company? Is there one. I mean, really? Consider for a moment the Toronto Star: Formed by striking workers at the turn of the century. A socially progressive and liberal newspaper just contracted out it's home delivery service to bust a strike by it's carriers.

Capitalists will accept circumstances only as long as they need to. They will lobby and plot to roll back any advances that shaves even a penny from their profits. Because they are motivated by profit and profit alone. This alone renders Quirk's vision dark.

quote:

---

I disagree that wealth distribution or a guaranteed income will come anywhere near the nirvana he has planned for it.

---

Ok, WingNut, I apreciate the disagreement, but why do you not quote my actual words and respond to them when you disagree? All you are doing is errecting straw men. Since I didn't say, nor do I believe much of what you attribute to me.

Not withstanding, since you are eager, I'll scoure your article to see if there's something there we can hinge a debate on....

quote:

---

Not because the programs themselves were faulty but because those with wealth and the corpoartions they control have successfuly rolled back most gains and have there eyes set on the few remaining: medical care, pensions, etc ...

---

So therefore, these wealth redistribution programs you claim have being going for the last 30 years obviously didn't go far enough, since you still talk about "those with wealth and power."

quote:

---

There has been talk of a guaranteed income. But such talk is quickly shelved. In the current economic environment it is simply a no go.

---

Yes, there has been talk of Gauranteed Anual Income ever since Negetive Income Tax was proposed by the economist Milton Friedman in the 40s. Friedman argues that the cheapest and most effective method of alleviating poverty is to give the poor money

So why is a cheaper and more effective aproach to alleviating poverty a no go in the current economy?

quote:

---

First, he presupposes that the average earner today is not a "good person" even if he/she works for a living in a blue or white collar environment.

---

What???? Please quote where I presuppose this! Quite to the contrary, I believe that the average earner is a good person, who only works for a bad company because the alternative is poverty.

quote:

---

in all these communities Sprawl-Marts and McCompanies continue to sprout up and thrive. Because as capitalists have discovered, people might believe one way but will spend quite another.

---

Yes, people go to these companies because their product is cheaper. The question you need to look at is why are they cheaper. The answer, you will find, is labour and environmental exploitation. We'll leave environmental issues aside for the moment, since labour is more on topic here. GAI means that people have options, they can simply not allow themselves to be exploited by these companies. Without access to cheap labour, these companies would lose there competative advantage, low prices, and thus fall to competition from companies that deliver more value and have deeper roots in the community.

quote:

---

The good company? Is there one. I mean, really?

---

Companies will do whatever gives them a competative advantage in the marketplace, if the rules of the marketplace are set up so that bad behaviour is rewarded with poor labour laws, poor social infrastruture, poor environmental protection, lack of education, bad companies will thrive. If the marketplace is setup so that good
behaviour is rewarded, with progressive labour laws, strong social infrastructure, strong environmental protections, education, child care, etc, good companies will thrive.