Affirmative Action (split from shooting du jour)

[Toni]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

 

[Trausti]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

 

[Toni]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Sigh. Affirmative action does not mandate or suggest admitting unqualified candidates.

 

[Trausti]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Sigh. Affirmative action does not mandate or suggest admitting unqualified candidates.

And yet it moves.

 

[laughing dog]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

You are mistaken.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

Only for those people who either misunderstand AA or who are bigots.

 

[laughing dog]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

The asssumption that a black person necessarily benefitted from AA is either downright ignorant or downright bigoted.

 

[bilby]

Here's a pretty clear example.

Suppose an HR director gets two nearly identical resumes, people applying for a job. One black, the other white.

A reasonably savvy HR director will know that the white applicant got the credentials with Affirmative Action working against them. The black applicant had Affirmative Action working for them. All else equal, the white applicant is probably better.

This is completely the opposite of 50 years ago. But it is the modern reality.
Tom

How did someone get credentials ‘with affirmative action working against them?’

Why do you assume that a black applicant only earned their credentials because of affirmative action?

You don't know it, but you suspect it. There are colleges where basically all black admits are below basically all white admits.

People aren't employing admits, they're employing graduates.

If your contention is that colleges don't teach anything, or even that all students get the exact same gain in ability and knowledge, it's going to be entertaining to watch you try to support it.

If that's not your contention, then you are worrying about something irrelevant. My employer isn't concerned about the ability I had to drive a heavy vehicle on the day I started training, or on the day I left kindergarten; Only about my ability at the end of my driver training, when I took my test.

Nobody cares if a graduate was a total ignoramus when they started college; They care what they knew when they passed their final exams - which is why there are final exams in the first place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure the grading is honest?

My mother's teaching career ended because she dared to flunk the star women's basketball player. (She was considering retiring anyway, but wasn't given a choice after giving a completely honest grade. And, yes, I know it was honest because I was the one actually doing the grading--true/false, I didn't need to know the material to grade. Getting ~25% on a true/false with no guessing penalty is quite an accomplishment.)

Same thing nearly happened to my great uncle. Not all were able pass his math class. He was pressured to change the grades to passing for some players. He dared them to fire him, refused to change the grade ….and later became principal.

All the basketball players were white.

There has been a lot of pressure to pass athletes regardless of their achievements since before either of us was born.

If you can pressure over athletics, you can pressure over the "racist" action of flunking those blacks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

No. You don't know whether their credentials are honest or not. It's like the boss' nephew--they might be fine but would you trust the boss' word that he's qualified??

So long as schools discriminate the credentials they issue will be suspect.

 

[Trausti]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

The asssumption that a black person necessarily benefitted from AA is either downright ignorant or downright bigoted.

LOL. But assuming a White person benefitted from White Privilege or some other imaginary racial miasma is just fine!

 

[laughing dog]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

The asssumption that a black person necessarily benefitted from AA is either downright ignorant or downright bigoted.

LOL.

Thanks for the confirmation.

But assuming a White person benefitted from White Privilege or some other imaginary racial miasma is just fine!

Bringing up this straw man “whatsboutism is mire confirmation of my observation.

 

[Toni]

Sure the grading is honest?

My mother's teaching career ended because she dared to flunk the star women's basketball player. (She was considering retiring anyway, but wasn't given a choice after giving a completely honest grade. And, yes, I know it was honest because I was the one actually doing the grading--true/false, I didn't need to know the material to grade. Getting ~25% on a true/false with no guessing penalty is quite an accomplishment.)

Same thing nearly happened to my great uncle. Not all were able pass his math class. He was pressured to change the grades to passing for some players. He dared them to fire him, refused to change the grade ….and later became principal.

All the basketball players were white.

There has been a lot of pressure to pass athletes regardless of their achievements since before either of us was born.

If you can pressure over athletics, you can pressure over the "racist" action of flunking those blacks.

OMG Loren. You can decide anything is racist.

YOU brought up the example of your mom quitting because she felt pressured to change a basketball player’s grade.

I countered with my uncke refusing to change the grades of (white) basketball players.

Sometimes, teachers are pressured to change grades when they gave a fair and honest grade. The pressures can be for a variety of reasons but most cases I know of involve athletes. Teaching requires a lot of things, including strong ethics and the ability and fortitude to resist pressure to do something that violates their ethics.

That said, if it was noticed that any instructor gave poor grades to any particular demographic: male/female/white/black/Latino/gay/straight/whatever, admin would likely ask some questions and might do some investigation.

One thing that I noticed when I was last a student ( not as long ago as you might think) is that students know when an instructor is being fair or unfair —and do not like it, even if it is not directly affecting them. Tough is fine, so long as it’s applied evenly.

 

[Toni]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

The asssumption that a black person necessarily benefitted from AA is either downright ignorant or downright bigoted.

LOL. But assuming a White person benefitted from White Privilege or some other imaginary racial miasma is just fine!

Not only fine but usually correct.

 

[Hermit]

Looks very similar to what TomC labelled "institutional racism".

I see a tenuous connection, but a bunch of huge differences.

Yes, of course there are a bunch of differences, but I see none that would make disqualify Germany's reparations from being called affirmative actions.

For one thing, Germany didn't decide to do this. It was forced upon them by the victorious Allies.

So it was enforced affirmative action.

For another, they were really returning stolen loot to the victims. Before being slaughtered and driven out, European Jews were systematically looted. Property, bank accounts, pretty much everything. The Germans were being forced to return it to the people that they stole it from, at least the survivors. That's very different from the great great grandchildren of oppressed people demanding reparations from the great great grandchildren of the oppressors.(or anyone of a similar race)

In percentage terms the stolen goods issue is just part of the agreement, and while some of the moneys go to the holocaust survivors in the form of small pensions ($290/month), most of its victims are dead. The bulk of the money goes to the state of Israel and the Jewish population benefits from it collectively. I have quoted details how this was done between 1952 and 1964, but that was by no means the end of it. Germany is still paying for the damage of the previous regime.

Affirmative action is the active effort to improve the lot of groups that have been subjected to discrimination in the past.

By using institutional racism.

The US practised institutional racism at least until the mid-1960s. Until the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did away with the Jim Crow laws, it was institutionally a racially segregated country.

Obviously, institutional racism isn't necessarily bad. But this raises the question. What was the best thing in 1972 isn't necessarily the best thing in 2022. Is Affirmative Action still in anybody's best interests?

Until Afro-Americans as a recognisable entity have - on average - reached a similar social and economic level of existence, yes it is. "On average" is an important consideration. Even realising that there are millions of dirt-poor white-Americans, the average of all Afro-Americans is still significantly lower than the average of all White-Americans in 2022. I provided statistical evidence for it here, here, here and elsewhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

Nobody's refusing to acknowledge achievements. Rather, when achievements are given for skin color they cease to mean as much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Saying that doesn't make it so. When you admit with lower standards you are lowing standards.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sigh. Affirmative action does not mandate or suggest admitting unqualified candidates.

The explain that chart. "Qualified" isn't a binary state, you want the best students. That's not what that chart shows.

 

[bilby]

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Saying that doesn't make it so. When you admit with lower standards you are lowing standards.

Nope.

Admissions with lower thresholds broaden access. Only graduation with lower standards actually lowers standards.

 

[laughing dog]

Sigh. Affirmative action does not mandate or suggest admitting unqualified candidates.

The explain that chart. "Qualified" isn't a binary state, you want the best students. That's not what that chart shows.

Wrong - “qualified” is a binary state: qualified or unqualified.

 

[JohnG]

Here's a pretty clear example.

Suppose an HR director gets two nearly identical resumes, people applying for a job. One black, the other white.

A reasonably savvy HR director will know that the white applicant got the credentials with Affirmative Action working against them. The black applicant had Affirmative Action working for them. All else equal, the white applicant is probably better.

This is completely the opposite of 50 years ago. But it is the modern reality.
Tom

Well you're right that they give the white person the job more often than not

Mass fake resume study reveals scale of systematic racial discrimination in the U.S. labor market

Resumes penned by very White-sounding names like Jake or Molly were called for interviews more often than otherwise identical resumes signed by very Black-sounding names like Malick and Aaliyah.

www.zmescience.com