If the GOP Seriously Wants to Run Black Candidates, Why Doesn't It Run Serious Black Candidates?

[Samhain]

In any case I have the same thought about the GOPs white candidates. When is the GOP just going to run serious candidates in general?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[ronburgundy]

I have a theory. It's based on my observations of bigoted hiring managers. And it goes like this.


_IF_ you don't think black people are smart/hardworking/worthy, then your department will not have any because you won't hire them.
_IF_ you become forced to have some due to corporate pressure, it will not change the fact that you think there are not any qualified, at all.
_THEN_ you will take the first black you see and not care about their qualifications because you think they are all the same anyway, so what is the point in looking for this mythical "serious" candidate? it's a waste of time and you think everyone knows it.
_THEREFORE_ the person you hire is more likely to be a poor fit because you never bothered to vet them, since you don't care and don't think vetting can identify any black candidate that is superior to any other black candidate.

And of course, when you wind up with a substandard candidate, this will validate your view that ALL black candidates are substandard, because... see?


I have observed that bigoted hiring managers tend to find the least qualified black candidates and hire them. Failing to vet and look at two or seven or fifteen black candidates to find a good or best black candidate because they truly believe there is no good black candidate and searching is a waste of resources.

Meanwhile hiring managers who sincerely believe that candidates who are black are good and bad in the same proportion as candidates who are white will look at as many candidates as needed of any race and will weed out the weak candidates and hire outstanding talent of any race or ethnicity.

Invalid theory in general, and certainly of no relevance to the black candidate the GOP puts forth. The batshit crazy of the black GOP candidates is mostly about the fact that most of the white GOP candidates are also batshit crazy. If the black ones are any crazier, then that is likely due to the fact that for a black person to align themselves with the GOP, they have to be a special kind of delusional nutcase. And for them to get any level of support from the GOP base, they have to be an extremist whose nutjob views appeal to the crazies that comprise the GOP to such an extent that the GOP voters overlook their blackness, at least for a few months of the primaries.

As a hiring theory in general, it also does not fly. It's rather implausible that someone would risk their own job, income, or profits by trying to hire incompetent blacks when clearly more competent blacks are available. There may be some such instances where the manager is a hardcore overt racist. But far more likely and common is that a particular department or job level lacks black hires because few to none who apply are among the top candidates in the pool. This is due to the fact that for all kinds of reasons (including historical racism long preceding the hire in question) blacks often comprise only a tiny % of any applicant pool for non-entry level positions. Thus, even when those blacks that do apply have an equal average level of qualifications as the white applicants, the odds are statistically low that any black applicants would be among the top 5% of applicants. Thus, pressure to hire a black applicant (whether by corporate heads or affirmative action) usually means hiring someone that is objectively less qualified and competent than most other people hired at that level.

This is why reasonable people that fully acknowledge both historical and modern racist obstacles to black advancement still don't blindly support affirmative action policies related to hiring or academic admissions, and acknowledge that the long term negative effects in general on on blacks in particular might outweigh the positives.

 

[Rhea]

for a black person to align themselves with the GOP, they have to be a special kind of delusional nutcase. And for them to get any level of support from the GOP base, they have to be an extremist whose nutjob views appeal to the crazies that comprise the GOP to such an extent that the GOP voters overlook their blackness, at least for a few months of the primaries.

True - there's the filter of why anyone who is black, female or poor would support the GOP at all.

As a hiring theory in general, it also does not fly. It's rather implausible that someone would risk their own job, income, or profits by trying to hire incompetent blacks when clearly more competent blacks are available.

They do not believe this to be true (that competent black candidates are available). Based on my observation of them in action.

There may be some such instances where the manager is a hardcore overt racist. But far more likely and common is that a particular department or job level lacks black hires because few to none who apply are among the top candidates in the pool. This is due to the fact that for all kinds of reasons (including historical racism long preceding the hire in question) blacks often comprise only a tiny % of any applicant pool for non-entry level positions.

On the contrary, it is a tale about several different departments in a corporation who all have access to the same pool of applicants.

Thus, even when those blacks that do apply have an equal average level of qualifications as the white applicants, the odds are statistically low that any black applicants would be among the top 5% of applicants.

No, because the people recruiting and bringing applicants to department heads are trying very hard to acquire talent. This is true for female hires as well, by the way. The recruiters bring pools of applicants back They include both highly and marginally qualified people who are female, who are black and who are asian and who are white. There's a mix in each group. But each group does include highly qualified people.

Thus, pressure to hire a black applicant (whether by corporate heads or affirmative action) usually means hiring someone that is objectively less qualified and competent than most other people hired at that level.

No. This is what I was describing: The bigoted managers tend to hire the poor candidates, both black and female. While the non-bigoted managers hiring from the same applicant pool tend to get high quality candidates who are female and black.

So... why. Why, when using the same pool of applicants are the bigoted managers unable to land high quality applicants? My theory is that they refuse to detect them, refuse to test for them, refuse to search for them. These managers overlook the highly qualified black applicants in favor of poorly qualified black applicants.

The bigoted managers don't care to look through the pool. And my theory is that it is because they don't expect to find anything by looking further.

This is why reasonable people that fully acknowledge both historical and modern racist obstacles to black advancement still don't blindly support affirmative action policies related to hiring or academic admissions, and acknowledge that the long term negative effects in general on on blacks in particular might outweigh the positives.

Isn't that the logic of the manager that says, "I don't care about the interview just bring me a black engineer - it doesn't really matter which one, does it?"

 

[SimpleDon]

Deleted by Don, too long and not responsive to the OP.​

 

[ronburgundy]

As a hiring theory in general, it also does not fly. It's rather implausible that someone would risk their own job, income, or profits by trying to hire incompetent blacks when clearly more competent blacks are available.

They do not believe this to be true (that competent black candidates are available). Based on my observation of them in action.

Sorry, but even the most ardent of bigots who thinks that all blacks are inferior to all whites, still thinks their is variability in competence within each group. Your entire argument rest on your assumption that these managers do not believe in any within-group variability. The extreme implausibility of that suggests that your "observation" is nothing of the sort and is just faith-based presumption.

There may be some such instances where the manager is a hardcore overt racist. But far more likely and common is that a particular department or job level lacks black hires because few to none who apply are among the top candidates in the pool. This is due to the fact that for all kinds of reasons (including historical racism long preceding the hire in question) blacks often comprise only a tiny % of any applicant pool for non-entry level positions.

On the contrary, it is a tale about several different departments in a corporation who all have access to the same pool of applicants.

Different departments would typically require workers with different skill sets. If several different departments are using the same pool of applicants, then these must not be very skilled jobs. Regardless, whether they use the same pool is irrelevant to the fact that with rare exceptions, blacks are under-represented in most applicant pools, which often means only making up less than 5% of the pool.

Thus, even when those blacks that do apply have an equal average level of qualifications as the white applicants, the odds are statistically low that any black applicants would be among the top 5% of applicants.

No, because the people recruiting and bringing applicants to department heads are trying very hard to acquire talent. This is true for female hires as well, by the way. The recruiters bring pools of applicants back They include both highly and marginally qualified people who are female, who are black and who are asian and who are white.
There's a mix in each group. But each group does include highly qualified people.

Are the recruiters bringing back an equal number of black and white applicants? IF not, than as a mere matter of random probability, the is less likely to be blacks among the highest qualified. Being the highest qualified among a small sub-group is unlikely to make you among the highest qualified in the total pool. The only way to overcome this fact would be if the recruiters you speak of go out of their way and spend far more effort looking for qualified blacks than they do for whites. Only such non-random sampling would result in black applicants being among the most qualified in the total applicant pool. IF that is the case, then you are talking about an unusual special circumstance with no relevance to most hiring situations.

Thus, pressure to hire a black applicant (whether by corporate heads or affirmative action) usually means hiring someone that is objectively less qualified and competent than most other people hired at that level.

No. This is what I was describing: The bigoted managers tend to hire the poor candidates, both black and female. While the non-bigoted managers hiring from the same applicant pool tend to get high quality candidates who are female and black.

This presumes that you have categorized them as bigoted and non-bigoted based on some other empirical criteria having nothing to do with who they hire? What is that criteria?

So... why. Why, when using the same pool of applicants are the bigoted managers unable to land high quality applicants?

We have to take it on faith that all your premises are true, that you have accurately categorized them as bigots based on some independent basis, that the applicant pool is identical, that the jobs they are hired for are identical across all departments, and that the competence of the minority hires reliable correlated with the independently determined bigotry of the person who hired them. Sure, in the uncommon and non-generalizable special context in which all those assumptions are true, then your theory would be a plausible account for only those special contexts.

This is why reasonable people that fully acknowledge both historical and modern racist obstacles to black advancement still don't blindly support affirmative action policies related to hiring or academic admissions, and acknowledge that the long term negative effects in general on on blacks in particular might outweigh the positives.

It's the logic of the manager that says, "I don't care about the interview just bring me a black engineer - it doesn't really matter which one, does it?"

No. The logic of affirmative action is "I don't care if they are the most qualified, just bring me a black applicant." The statistical reality is that black applicants will most often not be among the most qualified, due to the low % of the applicant pool they comprise. Thus, using their blackness as a deciding factor is guaranteed to increase the odds that the person hired will be less qualified, and sometimes this will manifest as not being able to perform the job to an acceptable standard. This is the primary reason why blacks drop out of college at higher rates than whites. It is because they are more likely to be admitted with applications that are highly predictive of not performing well in college and dropping out. Addmission officers do not ignore variability in qualifications between black applicants. They admit the most qualified, but the pressure to admit a higher % forced them to lower the standards and admit blacks who applications would be rejected otherwise. That is the primary cause of lower classroom perfromance and thus higher dropout rates among black college students.

 

[Rhea]

They do not believe this to be true (that competent black candidates are available). Based on my observation of them in action.

Sorry, but even the most ardent of bigots who thinks that all blacks are inferior to all whites, still thinks their is variability in competence within each group. Your entire argument rest on your assumption that these managers do not believe in any within-group variability. The extreme implausibility of that suggests that your "observation" is nothing of the sort and is just faith-based presumption.
.

It's based on what they say. Talking with and working with actual hiring managers and being part of the interview and selection process in new hires.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Rhea,

Do you believe that "[bigoted] managers do not believe in any within-group variability?"

 

[Rhea]

Different departments would typically require workers with different skill sets. If several different departments are using the same pool of applicants, then these must not be very skilled jobs. Regardless, whether they use the same pool is irrelevant to the fact that with rare exceptions, blacks are under-represented in most applicant pools, which often means only making up less than 5% of the pool.

No. They are all engineering departments. It's a large corporation. Engineers at Plant A and engineers at Plant B. Research lab A and research lab B.

They are all skilled.

Are the recruiters bringing back an equal number of black and white applicants? IF not, than as a mere matter of random probability, the is less likely to be blacks among the highest qualified. Being the highest qualified among a small sub-group is unlikely to make you among the highest qualified in the total pool. The only way to overcome this fact would be if the recruiters you speak of go out of their way and spend far more effort looking for qualified blacks than they do for whites.

Yes, exactly.

Almost 100% of applicants are recruited from out of town. Therefore, the recruiters have the option of bringing back a top tier sample, not a normal distribution.

Only such non-random sampling would result in black applicants being among the most qualified in the total applicant pool. IF that is the case, then you are talking about an unusual special circumstance with no relevance to most hiring situations.

Except that it gives an outstanding front row seat to what various managers will do when offered mixed candidate pools of varying ethnicities.

This presumes that you have categorized them as bigoted and non-bigoted based on some other empirical criteria having nothing to do with who they hire? What is that criteria?

Talking with them. Drinking with them. Seeing what kinds of jokes they tell and what they say about candidates that leave the room and who they are willing to choose to sit with at lunch. What they say about their co-workers and their subordinates. Bigots aren't actually hard to spot when you work with them.

We have to take it on faith that all your premises are true, that you have accurately categorized them as bigots based on some independent basis, that the applicant pool is identical, that the jobs they are hired for are identical across all departments, and that the competence of the minority hires reliable correlated with the independently determined bigotry of the person who hired them. Sure, in the uncommon and non-generalizable special context in which all those assumptions are true, then your theory would be a plausible account for only those special contexts.

Fair enough. Yes. That is the theory I hold based on living in and working in that environment. I make no claim whether it is statistically valid or scientifically provable. It's the theory I hold based on observation and contemplation of WHY these managers behave as they do.

This is why reasonable people that fully acknowledge both historical and modern racist obstacles to black advancement still don't blindly support affirmative action policies related to hiring or academic admissions, and acknowledge that the long term negative effects in general on on blacks in particular might outweigh the positives.

It's the logic of the manager that says, "I don't care about the interview just bring me a black engineer - it doesn't really matter which one, does it?"

No. The logic of affirmative action is "I don't care if they are the most qualified, just bring me a black applicant."

Remember, we are also questioning why they won't interview additional applicants. WHY, when this one is not a good fit, do you decline further applicants, some of whom are black?

That is the kind of question that led me to contemplate what might be behind such a (to me counterproductive) decision.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea,

Do you believe that "[bigoted] managers do not believe in any within-group variability?"

Yes. I have heard them ask, "what's the difference?" between one black candidate and another when there are clear and documented differences.
I have heard them disparage ALL black applicants without viewing their resumes.
And for that matter, sometimes all women applicants, too.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They do not believe this to be true (that competent black candidates are available). Based on my observation of them in action.

Sorry, but even the most ardent of bigots who thinks that all blacks are inferior to all whites, still thinks their is variability in competence within each group. Your entire argument rest on your assumption that these managers do not believe in any within-group variability. The extreme implausibility of that suggests that your "observation" is nothing of the sort and is just faith-based presumption.

The explanation for that behavior is indeed a presumption, but I CAN tell you she's not the only one to observe this.

There is a lot of variability in how the decision is made, of course, but from my OWN observations there's usually some kind of random "flip a coin" thing that has nothing to do with their qualifications. E.G. they hire the one with the whitest sounding name, or the one with the quietest voice, or the one who wore a tie to the interview (I've seen all three of these happen from time to time). Looking at their qualifications alone would have lead to an altogether different choice.

Unlike Rhea, I am unsure of the extent to which this is based on prejudice as opposed to some management types simply being morons (the kinds of management types who make those kinds of mistakes make many, MANY mistakes of that type).

This is why reasonable people that fully acknowledge both historical and modern racist obstacles to black advancement still don't blindly support affirmative action policies related to hiring or academic admissions, and acknowledge that the long term negative effects in general on on blacks in particular might outweigh the positives.

It's the logic of the manager that says, "I don't care about the interview just bring me a black engineer - it doesn't really matter which one, does it?"

No. The logic of affirmative action is "I don't care if they are the most qualified, just bring me a black applicant." The statistical reality is that black applicants will most often not be among the most qualified, due to the low % of the applicant pool they comprise. Thus, using their blackness as a deciding factor is guaranteed to increase the odds that the person hired will be less qualified

But that's not the case we're talking about. We're talking about cases where a perfectly qualified candidate gets passed over for a less qualified one -- both of them black -- because the person conducting the interview either isn't paying attention (because he doesn't care which one of them is qualified or not) or is looking for characteristics unrelated to his qualifications.

I think Rhea has a point vis a vis Republican black candidates. They're not selecting people who they think are competent, honest, charismatic or intelligent. They're selecting people who are black enough to (they think) appeal to other black people AND are proven to be ideologically pure.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Any minorities who join the GOP lose their minority status and become white whatever their skin color. Therefore it is impossible for the GOP to run a black candidate.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ and this is the part where I feel bad for immediately thinking of Clarence and Ginni Thomas...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Any minorities who join the GOP lose their minority status and become white whatever their skin color. Therefore it is impossible for the GOP to run a black candidate.

Really? Soooo, all the money, property, and labor stolen from their ancestors is magically restored? Any profiling cop immediately knows they are republican and they never get stopped, they never get followed in dept. stores, and they will never be called a racial epitaph again by anyone.

An amazing feat indeed

 

[fast]

Where is the draft Condalezza movement?
What happened to Colin Powell?

Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes

Are these really the best the GOP can offer?

Why would any party want to be selective by race? In other words, why would the thoughts of race even be present? That would be like a business owner hoping his next customer is black; why want to (specifically) help a black person? Why the infusion of race? I don't go hoping that the next person to assist me in taking my food order is white.

Shouldn't the default mindset be to run serious candidates? There seems to be an underlying air of expectation that the GOP should seek out serious candidates that are black, as if race should be a focus before they're even found.

Also, there's an equivocation bubbling beneath the surface ready to ensnare the unsuspecting. If I'm openly asked if I want the GOP to run serious black candidates, how am I to respond? I could say no because having some candidates that must be black isn't something I want. Or, I could say yes because I want the GOP to run candidates regardless of color. Either way, if they say they want serious black candidates to run, you don't get to ask why don't they look for them as if to suggest to do otherwise means they don't want serious black candidates. Shouldn't we want serious candidates regardless of what they might so happen to be, or must we specifically want serious candidates that are black?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why would any party want to be selective by race? In other words, why would the thoughts of race even be present? That would be like a business owner hoping his next customer is black; why want to (specifically) help a black person? Why the infusion of race? I don't go hoping that the next person to assist me in taking my food order is white.

i think you're looking at it wrong, though.
They're not looking to serve the black citizens, they're looking to attract the black vote.
Way back when, they used to craft the party platform from particular planks, and hope that voters would find at least one attractive plank up there under the candidate's feet. Now they seem to be searching for attractive personalities. Bush I pretty much ran on a 'I'm Not Dukakis!' platform, promising to remain 'Not Dukakis!' for his entire presidency.

If I'm openly asked if I want the GOP to run serious black candidates, how am I to respond?

If they're going to reduce it to a yes/no question, they're the ones screwing up.

Personally, i'd answer that i want the GOP to be more open to all US citizens, no matter their race, sexual orientation or bank balance. I reject the idea that a candidate must be black in order to best serve the blacks, or be Latino to serve the Latinos, etc. But golly, I can't see the republicans figuring out how to convincingly sell that message without a black candidate.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

i think you're looking at it wrong, though.
They're not looking to serve the black citizens, they're looking to attract the black vote.
Way back when, they used to craft the party platform from particular planks, and hope that voters would find at least one attractive plank up there under the candidate's feet. Now they seem to be searching for attractive personalities. Bush I pretty much ran on a 'I'm Not Dukakis!' platform, promising to remain 'Not Dukakis!' for his entire presidency.

If I'm openly asked if I want the GOP to run serious black candidates, how am I to respond?

If they're going to reduce it to a yes/no question, they're the ones screwing up.

Personally, i'd answer that i want the GOP to be more open to all US citizens, no matter their race, sexual orientation or bank balance. I reject the idea that a candidate must be black in order to best serve the blacks, or be Latino to serve the Latinos, etc. But golly, I can't see the republicans figuring out how to convincingly sell that message without a black candidate.

the candidates the GOP runs reflect what they think of the groups to which those candidates belong. Run black candidates who are buffoons and you are saying to the world "We think black people are buffoons." This will not get you the black vote. BUT, it will get you the white bigot vote. PROBLEM is, the white bigot vote is a shrinking demographic and the black vote is a growing one (hence the GOP led moves to disenfranchise black voters.) However, nowadays no one wants to be labeled a bigot, or seeking the bigot vote, so the GOP must make a appearance to not be the party of the white bigot, hence the Herman Cains of the world.

 

[ZiprHead]

How about Michael Steele? He's intelligent and not completely nuts (although I guess that would disqualify him amongst most Republicans).

 

[Toni]

i think you're looking at it wrong, though.
They're not looking to serve the black citizens, they're looking to attract the black vote.
Way back when, they used to craft the party platform from particular planks, and hope that voters would find at least one attractive plank up there under the candidate's feet. Now they seem to be searching for attractive personalities. Bush I pretty much ran on a 'I'm Not Dukakis!' platform, promising to remain 'Not Dukakis!' for his entire presidency.

If they're going to reduce it to a yes/no question, they're the ones screwing up.

Personally, i'd answer that i want the GOP to be more open to all US citizens, no matter their race, sexual orientation or bank balance. I reject the idea that a candidate must be black in order to best serve the blacks, or be Latino to serve the Latinos, etc. But golly, I can't see the republicans figuring out how to convincingly sell that message without a black candidate.

the candidates the GOP runs reflect what they think of the groups to which those candidates belong. Run black candidates who are buffoons and you are saying to the world "We think black people are buffoons." This will not get you the black vote. BUT, it will get you the white bigot vote. PROBLEM is, the white bigot vote is a shrinking demographic and the black vote is a growing one (hence the GOP led moves to disenfranchise black voters.) However, nowadays no one wants to be labeled a bigot, or seeking the bigot vote, so the GOP must make a appearance to not be the party of the white bigot, hence the Herman Cains of the world.

To be perfectly fair, I am having a hard time coming up with any of the candidates still in the running who could not easily be considered to be buffoons.

But your point is well taken. They recognize they need some non-traditional (i.e. black, Hispanic, female) candidates to prove they are inclusive and look at what they come up with.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How about Michael Steele? He's intelligent and not completely nuts (although I guess that would disqualify him amongst most Republicans).

And where is he now? Michael Steele was actually trying to get black folk to vote republican because he knew that there is a large number of conservatives within the black voter demographic. But Michael Steele would not just be a figurehead that would counter the image of Barack Obama, would not "Jump Jim Crow" for the white folk, would not kowtow to Tea Party, so that black man had to go!

 

[Bomb#20]

the candidates the GOP runs reflect what they think of the groups to which those candidates belong. Run black candidates who are buffoons and you are saying to the world "We think black people are buffoons."

You say that as though Ben Carson were an iota more of a buffoon than Donald Trump.

The problem with your whole premise is that "the GOP" doesn't "run" candidates. Candidates are self-selected. If non-buffoonish candidates of whatever color don't want to run for President -- and why would anyone in his or her right mind want the job, let alone the deranged campaign -- then what's a party supposed to do about it? Back in the 80s I heard a lecture on the radio about the Soviet Union by some obscure poli sci professor named Condoleezza Rice and decided on the spot that she should be the President. But now, even if she wants the job, she's damaged goods -- irrevocably associated with Bush's disaster in Iraq. She knows perfectly well that that will be a massive anchor around her neck if she ever runs. How's the GOP supposed to fix that?