Structural/systemic racism poll

[ruby sparks]

It's just something not enough Americans are prepared to willingly do in order to address the effects of racism in their country.

 

[fromderinside]

Just voted. Other - it's universal written into constitution, criminal and civil law. It is not something individual, state or even national work can eliminate or reduce.

if we interpret "Defund the Police" as rewrite social and criminal law and enforcement protocols and practices we might have a place to begin.

However obvious things like social practices around color and behavior differences need be toned way down as well.

Not at all sure than can be done.

If we use radical change of practice like universal bathrooms and blindness to location and color in criminal suppression practices we might have a chance here in the US. Rather than operate out of fear public safety personnel might try operating out of "how would I approach this if it were my children".

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Loren: Black kids are just violent troublemakers by nature, that's all...

Black kids Inner city kids with parents who don't care

You live in a way different kind of city than I do.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

And so because I am white, they do not hide this from me. I have watched this happen.. I have heard the words the (white) hiring managers use. I have heard the words they use later, when people are watching.

Affirmative action gets around those people. Not perfectly, not always, not without acknowleding and focusing on race, and not, in my opinion, by giving minority applicants something they didn’t earn, except in the cases of the worst racism, where the hiring manager says, “I don’t give a shit which one you hire, they all are shit, just take the first one you see and let’s get this over with.” Which results in an unfit hire and makes the racist think he was right all along, that all black or hispanic applicants are inherently unqualified.

I am for AA because it holds companies to account for failing to hire according to merit, and the ones I’ve known, would never ever hire a person who is black or hispanic wihtout a law forcing them to. It is not perfect, but it is far better than no scrutiny at all.

You have heard the words that some hiring managers use.

Yes, there are KKK types out there. However, so long as there aren't too many of them the harm they do is very minimal, while AA causes substantial harm regardless of the size of the problem. You seem to be unable to realize the costs of your "solution".

Except that Trump has shined the light on that mistake. It turns out to be almost half the population.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do think it's false to say that AA causes substantial harm. I think more of the harm is the (somewhat unnecessary) backlash to it, which I think involves overstating the problems with it.

It's not that much to do, guys. And a LOT of shit went down, and not even that long ago, that shaped the existing inequalities. Everyone knows that. It's not even as if the modern version of strong AA is all that strong, really. It's been weakened considerably since Reagan.

"Substantial harm" from AA. I have yet to see it. Competent people still get hired. The competent people selected are, as a result of the program, more often minorities.

Maybe all the whiners out there are just pissed because nobody is calling them back? Maybe get good at your jobs and you won't have that problem.

You're assuming those who are hired are competent. I've seen employers not fire because of fear of discrimination allegations. I have seen decisions not to take action because someone was disabled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

However, so long as there aren't too many of them the harm they do is very minimal, while AA causes substantial harm regardless of the size of the problem. You seem to be unable to realize the costs of your "solution".

What harm are you talking about? I can see clear harm for the KKK managers... I'm really not sure what great harm there is with AA being in place.

First, there aren't as many qualified black applicants as demographics would say (obviously true as many have criminal records that will keep them out of many jobs.) Second, companies don't want to be in the bottom half. The result is substantial discrimination against white males.

It's cheaper to hire the less qualified than be a target of a discrimination allegation.

 

[Emily Lake]

However, so long as there aren't too many of them the harm they do is very minimal, while AA causes substantial harm regardless of the size of the problem. You seem to be unable to realize the costs of your "solution".

What harm are you talking about? I can see clear harm for the KKK managers... I'm really not sure what great harm there is with AA being in place.

First, there aren't as many qualified black applicants as demographics would say (obviously true as many have criminal records that will keep them out of many jobs.) Second, companies don't want to be in the bottom half. The result is substantial discrimination against white males.

It's cheaper to hire the less qualified than be a target of a discrimination allegation.

I'm assuming you have some data to back this up?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

However, so long as there aren't too many of them the harm they do is very minimal, while AA causes substantial harm regardless of the size of the problem. You seem to be unable to realize the costs of your "solution".

What harm are you talking about? I can see clear harm for the KKK managers... I'm really not sure what great harm there is with AA being in place.

First, there aren't as many qualified black applicants as demographics would say (obviously true as many have criminal records that will keep them out of many jobs.) Second, companies don't want to be in the bottom half. The result is substantial discrimination against white males.

It's cheaper to hire the less qualified than be a target of a discrimination allegation.

Erase criminal records once the debt is paid. Right?

 

[Jarhyn]

First, there aren't as many qualified black applicants as demographics would say (obviously true as many have criminal records that will keep them out of many jobs.) Second, companies don't want to be in the bottom half. The result is substantial discrimination against white males.

It's cheaper to hire the less qualified than be a target of a discrimination allegation.

I'm assuming you have some data to back this up?

He doesn't. He also doesn't realize that no matter what demographics you are looking at, as long as the demographic isn't actually RARE, there will be qualified applicants in that demographic.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that usually "qualified" is not a curve, it is a binary. Either you can do the job, or you can't, and if you can, if you are able to, the only real difference is going to be minutiae of experience, which anyone can get on the job.

It's like he thinks black people can't be as qualified as white people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, there aren't as many qualified black applicants as demographics would say (obviously true as many have criminal records that will keep them out of many jobs.) Second, companies don't want to be in the bottom half. The result is substantial discrimination against white males.

It's cheaper to hire the less qualified than be a target of a discrimination allegation.

I'm assuming you have some data to back this up?

He doesn't. He also doesn't realize that no matter what demographics you are looking at, as long as the demographic isn't actually RARE, there will be qualified applicants in that demographic.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that usually "qualified" is not a curve, it is a binary. Either you can do the job, or you can't, and if you can, if you are able to, the only real difference is going to be minutiae of experience, which anyone can get on the job.

It's like he thinks black people can't be as qualified as white people.

When you take out 1/6 of the pool for criminal records you should expect to take out 1/6 of the candidates even if everything else is equal.

And I don't think black people can't be as qualified. I'm saying that the reality is that fewer are qualified, not that the qualified ones are inferior.

 

[Jarhyn]

He doesn't. He also doesn't realize that no matter what demographics you are looking at, as long as the demographic isn't actually RARE, there will be qualified applicants in that demographic.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that usually "qualified" is not a curve, it is a binary. Either you can do the job, or you can't, and if you can, if you are able to, the only real difference is going to be minutiae of experience, which anyone can get on the job.

It's like he thinks black people can't be as qualified as white people.

When you take out 1/6 of the pool for criminal records you should expect to take out 1/6 of the candidates even if everything else is equal.

And I don't think black people can't be as qualified. I'm saying that the reality is that fewer are qualified, not that the qualified ones are inferior.

If you are saying fewer are qualified, but not that the qualified ones are inferior, it does not matter to the business quality end that they are hiring black people as opposed to white people, and AA has no business end impact, so your arguments thus far have been absolutely invalid.

All that remains is my advice to you: "git gud."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He doesn't. He also doesn't realize that no matter what demographics you are looking at, as long as the demographic isn't actually RARE, there will be qualified applicants in that demographic.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that usually "qualified" is not a curve, it is a binary. Either you can do the job, or you can't, and if you can, if you are able to, the only real difference is going to be minutiae of experience, which anyone can get on the job.

It's like he thinks black people can't be as qualified as white people.

When you take out 1/6 of the pool for criminal records you should expect to take out 1/6 of the candidates even if everything else is equal.

And I don't think black people can't be as qualified. I'm saying that the reality is that fewer are qualified, not that the qualified ones are inferior.

If you are saying fewer are qualified, but not that the qualified ones are inferior, it does not matter to the business quality end that they are hiring black people as opposed to white people, and AA has no business end impact, so your arguments thus far have been absolutely invalid.

All that remains is my advice to you: "git gud."

If only one business did it you would be right. However, when every business does it the pool of qualified blacks is depleted and businesses are forced to hire unqualified blacks.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you are saying fewer are qualified, but not that the qualified ones are inferior, it does not matter to the business quality end that they are hiring black people as opposed to white people, and AA has no business end impact, so your arguments thus far have been absolutely invalid.

All that remains is my advice to you: "git gud."

If only one business did it you would be right. However, when every business does it the pool of qualified blacks is depleted and businesses are forced to hire unqualified blacks.

That's comical. Really, it is. That's not how business work, and it's not how AA works, it's not how hiring managers work. For any position where qualifications actually matter, "is qualified" is always the first cutoff for applicants. No intelligent hiring manager is going to hire a clearly unqualified candidate. It doesn't work that way. Maybe an unqualified hiring manager would hire an unqualified candidate, but then your company has other issues.

The recommendation remains "Git Gud!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you are saying fewer are qualified, but not that the qualified ones are inferior, it does not matter to the business quality end that they are hiring black people as opposed to white people, and AA has no business end impact, so your arguments thus far have been absolutely invalid.

All that remains is my advice to you: "git gud."

If only one business did it you would be right. However, when every business does it the pool of qualified blacks is depleted and businesses are forced to hire unqualified blacks.

That's comical. Really, it is. That's not how business work, and it's not how AA works, it's not how hiring managers work. For any position where qualifications actually matter, "is qualified" is always the first cutoff for applicants. No intelligent hiring manager is going to hire a clearly unqualified candidate. It doesn't work that way. Maybe an unqualified hiring manager would hire an unqualified candidate, but then your company has other issues.

The recommendation remains "Git Gud!"

In other words, you have no rebuttal to the fact that the qualified applicant pool gets depleted.

We have an even better example of this in college admissions because we have a better yardstick.

The top tier schools discriminate, they dip into the black students that should be in second tier schools. This leaves the second tier schools with an even smaller pool of qualified applicants, they have to dip even further. Going down the ladder it reaches the point where there's almost no overlap between black and white SAT scores.

 

[Emily Lake]

If only one business did it you would be right. However, when every business does it the pool of qualified blacks is depleted and businesses are forced to hire unqualified blacks.

I think you've got some false impressions in here.

First off, you're assuming that the pool of qualified black people is impacted by criminal backgrounds in a significantly larger way than that of any other demographic. While I agree with you that black people, on the whole, face materially harsher and unnecessary treatment by our justice system, I'm not sure that such treatment has a dramatic effect on the pool of qualified applicants for most jobs. I would prefer some statistics that demonstrate this rather than supposition.

Secondly, you're overlooking that a lack of qualified applicants is an acceptable reason for not having a demographically representative group of employees. If the applicants truly are unqualified, employers should be able to demonstrate that with little effort if questioned.

Lastly, you seem to be focused very specifically on black people in this dynamic, ignoring that AA doesn't actually require perfectly representative workforces across every cohort, but generally looks to two cross-sectional measures: 1) proportion of male and female and 2) proportion of white versus minority. Minority thresholds can usually be met with hispanic or asian employees as well as black.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If only one business did it you would be right. However, when every business does it the pool of qualified blacks is depleted and businesses are forced to hire unqualified blacks.

I think you've got some false impressions in here.

First off, you're assuming that the pool of qualified black people is impacted by criminal backgrounds in a significantly larger way than that of any other demographic. While I agree with you that black people, on the whole, face materially harsher and unnecessary treatment by our justice system, I'm not sure that such treatment has a dramatic effect on the pool of qualified applicants for most jobs. I would prefer some statistics that demonstrate this rather than supposition.

Duh! More blacks have criminal records, thus more are out of the running for a lot of jobs.

Secondly, you're overlooking that a lack of qualified applicants is an acceptable reason for not having a demographically representative group of employees. If the applicants truly are unqualified, employers should be able to demonstrate that with little effort if questioned.

Except it's not. Not enough minorities is easy to measure. Not qualified isn't so easy to measure. When a fuzzy standard competes with a sharp one the sharp one always wins.

Lastly, you seem to be focused very specifically on black people in this dynamic, ignoring that AA doesn't actually require perfectly representative workforces across every cohort, but generally looks to two cross-sectional measures: 1) proportion of male and female and 2) proportion of white versus minority. Minority thresholds can usually be met with hispanic or asian employees as well as black.

Where are you getting this notion?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I have been waiting until Election day for this poll, because I needed to see the outcome of California's Proposition 16. They voted against Structural/systemic racism. Had the proposition passed I would have had to vote that it does exist.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have been waiting until Election day for this poll, because I needed to see the outcome of California's Proposition 16. They voted against Structural/systemic racism. Had the proposition passed I would have had to vote that it does exist.

Do you think the proposition would have created anti-Black structural/systemic racism? Why?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have been waiting until Election day for this poll, because I needed to see the outcome of California's Proposition 16. They voted against Structural/systemic racism. Had the proposition passed I would have had to vote that it does exist.

Do you think the proposition would have created anti-Black structural/systemic racism? Why?

Racism is racism, changing the target doesn't change the reality. Prop 16 was attempting to legalize racism and sexism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have been waiting until Election day for this poll, because I needed to see the outcome of California's Proposition 16. They voted against Structural/systemic racism. Had the proposition passed I would have had to vote that it does exist.

Do you think the proposition would have created anti-Black structural/systemic racism? Why?

Racism is racism, changing the target doesn't change the reality. Prop 16 was attempting to legalize racism and sexism.

While it was attempting to legalize some instances of racism and sexism, it would not have created them. Legalizing X does not mean making X happen.

Sure, as a result, in this particular case, instances of sexism and racism would have happened, but not immediately, and in any case, there is no evidence to conclude that any of those instances would have triggered an affirmative answer in this thread. On that note, the question in this thread is not about sexism, and also it is not about racism in general. It is about anti-Black structural/systemic racism. There seems to be no good reason to believe that passing the proposition would have resulted in any instances of anti-Black systemic or institutional racism, at least not in the short term, and probably never. So, I was asking Jason about the reason for his assessment.