Reports of the death of racism have been greatly exaggerated

[Master of Ossus]

I have to disagree wrt MoO's post. We're discussing the topic in one of my classes, and the important thing to remember is that affirmative action does not negate that you must have a minimum level of competancy in a field. You're not going to get hired because just because you're a minority. You're going to get hired because you meet at least the minimum qualifications needed.

So? Many, many people meet the "minimum qualifications needed" to get hired at a major law firm--that just entails passing the Bar exam. Only a very few can be successful at major law firms because that is a far more exacting standard (less than 100% of the people who pass Bar exams will be outstanding lawyers). Meeting the minimum qualifications for a position is fine when we're talking about jobs in which everyone is approximately as productive as everyone else, but in professional fields someone who's better can be much more productive and much more valuable than someone who's average. Meeting the minimum qualifications doesn't mean that you're equally qualified with other people in such fields, that you're competitive, or that you're equally valuable to the firm.

If people don't understand this, then the resentment isn't the fault of affirmative action, but rather their lack of understanding of it. Further, it does provide a much needed boost because women and minorities have been historically oppressed, thus leading to current day underrepresentation in both the workforce and in school.

Nonsense. Women are hugely overrepresented in modern colleges, and have consistently outperformed men in terms of grades at all levels of schooling.

Further, I find it absurd to complain about not getting a job when we see studies showing that Anglo sounding names are more likely to be the ones getting call-backs and whatnot.

So? That doesn't stop them, does it?

[ArmorPierce]

What are you talking about? AA is easy to enforce: you simply do spot checks of companies above a certain size which seem to have very few minority employees (or where almost all of their minority employees are in low-wage positions), and then threaten them with substantial penalties if this situation is not rectified.

Well, my only concern is how you'd prove that they really were rejecting more minority applicants than white applicants, especially if they were based in a predominantly white region. Unless they were required to keep records on rejected applicants for auditing as well, anyway.

It is based off application rates I believe. I actually posted an article that stated the exact same thing recently when I was arguing that the modern work place is not a flat playing field.

[MKSheppard]

So, all of the people who say that the need for affirmative action is long gone ... what say you to this?

Sort of semi directed at you; hope you'll understand.

Way back when in Elementary School, we had a kid in my class named Ju Ku; about maybe towards middle school, he changed his named to Jason Ku; and I know you've mentioned as much with picking your kids' first names; you wanted something that was strong sounding, and didn't open them up to ridicule at school by picking David and Matthew; not for any supposed judeo-christian ideology (though I suppose it DID help you with the in-laws as a bonus).

At least Wong can't be misspelled that badly. You would NOT believe how badly my last name can be fucked up:

Creeerie
Curry

among others.

[apocolypse]

So? Many, many people meet the "minimum qualifications needed" to get hired at a major law firm--that just entails passing the Bar exam. Only a very few can be successful at major law firms because that is a far more exacting standard (less than 100% of the people who pass Bar exams will be outstanding lawyers). Meeting the minimum qualifications for a position is fine when we're talking about jobs in which everyone is approximately as productive as everyone else, but in professional fields someone who's better can be much more productive and much more valuable than someone who's average. Meeting the minimum qualifications doesn't mean that you're equally qualified with other people in such fields, that you're competitive, or that you're equally valuable to the firm.

First off, I'm not even talking about law firms specifically, I'm talking about employment in general in my original post. It's not exactly a hidden fact that minorities are often shafted, the thread itself is about another survey confirming what we already know. You're own aside has not actually addressed the need for AA, only that you seem to think white people are getting the shaft from minorities because of AA. I pointed out the reasons for its existence. Not to mention you're using rather vague and highly subjective wording. How do you know that the unique experiences a minority can bring won't also be "equally valuable"?

Nonsense. Women are hugely overrepresented in modern colleges, and have consistently outperformed men in terms of grades at all levels of schooling.

I stand corrected on the education aspect, I thought the balance was still slightly male. However, that's proof that it's working to help balance historical oppression, not proof against it. Not to mention that you skipped completely over the "workplace" aspect that was also part of the post.

So? That doesn't stop them, does it?

How exactly does "it doesn't stop them" negate what I posted in any way? People can claim whatever reason they want for not getting hired but they don't know what the actual reason was.

[Modax]

I think the study should have included some eastern european names as a control; that way, you could determine whether the issue here really is racism or simply xenophobia. For example, I met a girl in Edmonton whose family just moved here from Russia; her mother is a civil engineer but was unable to find work and now works in a clothing store. Obviously, one anecdote doesn't give me a case here, but I don't think we can ASSUME racism right off the bat.

[Master of Ossus]

First off, I'm not even talking about law firms specifically, I'm talking about employment in general in my original post.

A model which systematically fails in professional fields, which do not have criteria that would be required for any sensible affirmative action program.

It's not exactly a hidden fact that minorities are often shafted, the thread itself is about another survey confirming what we already know. You're own aside has not actually addressed the need for AA, only that you seem to think white people are getting the shaft from minorities because of AA.

Nonsense: I'm arguing that minorities are actively harmed by the application of affirmative action policies to professional fields. It's a counterpoint to the non sequitur that people in this thread are falling for: discrimination, ergo affirmative action!!!!11!

I pointed out the reasons for its existence.

Reasons which make no sense if it's harming minorities and further make no sense in the context of academics--where affirmative action has been frequently applied.

Not to mention you're using rather vague and highly subjective wording. How do you know that the unique experiences a minority can bring won't also be "equally valuable"?

So you think that these firms are hiring people and then firing them despite the fact that they're more valuable employees before they even reach their third or fourth year in the firm (e.g., four years before they're likely to come up for a partnership consideration)? That's right when attorneys are most valuable for their firms--why would they terminate their most valuable employees right when they were becoming most profitable, and without recouping all of their training costs from the first few years of their work with the firm when attorneys are enormously expensive? If the firms were racist, why the fuck would they hire so many blacks in the first place (indeed, preferring them over white applicants to a massive degree).

I stand corrected on the education aspect, I thought the balance was still slightly male. However, that's proof that it's working to help balance historical oppression, not proof against it.

Oh, I see: so you think that we SHOULD make sure that 60% of college graduates are women because at some time in the past they've been oppressed in... non-academic areas. So when, precisely, do you think that we can end such affirmative action policies in academia?

Not to mention that you skipped completely over the "workplace" aspect that was also part of the post.

I didn't find it relevant because no one here has shown a SHRED of evidence that affirmative action is actually systematically helpful in the modern world at correcting or addressing historical oppression. In fact, I have shown considerable evidence that it has precisely the opposite effect because it consistently excludes blacks and minorities from appropriate legal and professional positions, and hence creates a "glass ceiling" effect by discouraging minorities from entering into such fields and prevents them from rising to high positions by shoveling them into firms for which they are unprepared, get discouraged, and leave. Even in non-professional areas, it is a policy that consistently gets people up in arms for little appreciable benefit because what I've been saying is true: people complain about affirmative action even when it was a non-factor, which leads to bad blood for no reason.

How exactly does "it doesn't stop them" negate what I posted in any way? People can claim whatever reason they want for not getting hired but they don't know what the actual reason was.

But they attribute it to affirmative action because affirmative action policies aren't banned. If there was no affirmative action, they wouldn't be able to fall back on that as an excuse and hence it would not add fuel to racial resentment.

[apocolypse]

Prove to me that affirmative action is actually harming minorities. So far you've posted something that doesn't apparently do it.

Oh, I see: so you think that we SHOULD make sure that 60% of college graduates are women because at some time in the past they've been oppressed in... non-academic areas.

That's funny. I seem to recall women historically being denied entrance to higher education. That's kind of an "academic" area.

Not to mention that some colleges are now reversing the trend to allow for male preference to adjust the balance back. See, it doesn't matter when "I" think it should end.

I didn't find it relevant because no one here has shown a SHRED of evidence that affirmative action is actually systematically helpful in the modern world at correcting or addressing historical oppression. In fact, I have shown considerable evidence that it has precisely the opposite effect because it consistently excludes blacks and minorities from appropriate legal and professional positions, and hence creates a "glass ceiling" effect by discouraging minorities from entering into such fields and prevents them from rising to high positions by shoveling them into firms for which they are unprepared, get discouraged, and leave.

I'm sorry, where's this actual evidence? All I've seen is you postulating that they aren't the best possible candidates (even though you, or no one else for that matter actually knows this) and that they somehow can't compete. That's not really "considerable evidence".

But they attribute it to affirmative action because affirmative action policies aren't banned. If there was no affirmative action, they wouldn't be able to fall back on that as an excuse and hence it would not add fuel to racial resentment.

So because you would like one less excuse for racist fucks to use, then we should take something away that's actively trying to better the lives of others? That sounds a bit like grasping for straws at this point.

[Master of Ossus]

Prove to me that affirmative action is actually harming minorities. So far you've posted something that doesn't apparently do it.

Fuck you. The burden of proof isn't on me in the first place (it's on YOU to prove that affirmative action effectively redresses racism), but in what sense did the study that I presented prove unsatisfactory?

That's funny. I seem to recall women historically being denied entrance to higher education. That's kind of an "academic" area.

You mean in the 1950's? Three generations ago? That's why we should have affirmative action programs, today?

Not to mention that some colleges are now reversing the trend to allow for male preference to adjust the balance back. See, it doesn't matter when "I" think it should end.

Yes it does, fucktard, because you've justified affirmative action on the basis that there was historical discrimination at an unspecified time in the past against various groups. Even if affirmative action were helpful at redressing historical harms, that provides no guidelines whatsoever for when such policies are no longer necessary and can be retired. (Edit: Also note that your formulation of affirmative action creates an element of zero-sum to the calculus--if you continue an affirmative action program for long enough that it harms a previously advantaged group, you presumably must go back and redress the new wrong caused by affirmative action by creating a new policy in precisely the wrong direction).

Also, show me a college that has an affirmative action for men policy. (Hint: It's trivial to show colleges that continue to discriminate against men despite your seeming dismissal of the potential for countervailing harms).

I'm sorry, where's this actual evidence? All I've seen is you postulating that they aren't the best possible candidates (even though you, or no one else for that matter actually knows this) and that they somehow can't compete. That's not really "considerable evidence".

Are you just deliberately obfuscatory or are you this stupid?

Moreover, put up evidence that affirmative action is effective at remedying the problems you use to justify it like I asked you to.

So because you would like one less excuse for racist fucks to use, then we should take something away that's actively trying to better the lives of others? That sounds a bit like grasping for straws at this point.

Not when those racists' arguments are actively harmful to racial relations. Presumably, affirmative action will have done its job in a hypothetical future in which there is no further racism. Policies that continually draw attention to race as a determining feature, even when it's totally irrelevant are counter-productive to achieving such a future.

[Singular Intellect]

I'll get behind affirmative action as long as it works both ways; any company over a certain size that has anomalously low number of white employees is also forced to hire more.

[General Zod]

I'll get behind affirmative action as long as it works both ways; any company over a certain size that has anomalously low number of white employees is also forced to hire more.

Can you actually name any companies big enough for AA to apply where this is the case?

[Singular Intellect]

I'll get behind affirmative action as long as it works both ways; any company over a certain size that has anomalously low number of white employees is also forced to hire more.

Can you actually name any companies big enough for AA to apply where this is the case?

Why should I have to? Are you suggesting white people are more racist than any other group?

In any population where there's a white majority, I would seriously expect this to be a rare occurence. Nevertheless, rare or not, I would expect any rational person arguing for equality to be completely behind protecting everyone from discrimination, not just 'non-whites'.

[General Zod]

Why should I have to? Are you suggesting white people are more racist than any other group?

In any population where there's a white majority, I would seriously expect this to be a rare occurence. Nevertheless, rare or not, I would expect any rational person arguing for equality to be completely behind protecting everyone from discrimination, not just 'non-whites'.

Are you suggesting that the deck isn't already stacked in a white person's favor?

[Singular Intellect]

Are you suggesting that the deck isn't already stacked in a white person's favor?

Let me put it another way: If we have a population ratio of 5 to 1 of two types of people, then affirmative action should be trying to correct it to reflect that ratio, agreed?

[Master of Ossus]

Are you suggesting that the deck isn't already stacked in a white person's favor?

Let me put it another way: If we have a population ratio of 5 to 1 of two types of people, then affirmative action should be trying to correct it to reflect that ratio, agreed?

Yeah, but presumably Zod was asking for instances of large companies that exhibit a greater than 1:5 ratio of minority:majority group, in your example (or, in real life, about a 12.4% black employee pool in the US).

[General Zod]

Are you suggesting that the deck isn't already stacked in a white person's favor?

Let me put it another way: If we have a population ratio of 5 to 1 of two types of people, then affirmative action should be trying to correct it to reflect that ratio, agreed?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, since basically it sounds as if you're saying that affirmative action should be correcting the amount of minorities in the work place. Since white people are decidedly NOT a minority, I see no reason why this law should apply to them.

[apocolypse]

Fuck you. The burden of proof isn't on me in the first place (it's on YOU to prove that affirmative action effectively redresses racism), but in what sense did the study that I presented prove unsatisfactory?

Except you're the one that stated the opening claim back on the first page. You stated that it harmed minorities, but you haven't actually proved it that I can see. If anything, it sounded like the people involved weren't properly qualified in the first place, but I could have misread it. Either way, I'm not seeing evidence of any sort of blanket detriment to minorities. If anything, their percentages in the workplace and schooling has risen over the past some odd decades. That doesn't sound like widespread harm.

You mean in the 1950's? Three generations ago?

Did I put a timeframe on it? Historical and systemic discrimination doesn't arbitrarily end at some specific point in time.

Yes it does, fucktard, because you've justified affirmative action on the basis that there was historical discrimination at an unspecified time in the past against various groups. Even if affirmative action were helpful, it fails to account for scenarios like this. Also, show me a college that has an affirmative action for men policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opini ... le_popular

Kenyon College apparently does, or did. There are several others that I saw that either have or are considering doing similar to reshift the demographic imbalances.

The University of Richmond has (or at least had in 07) a 51 to 49 percent student body ratio (51% being female) but rejects far more female applicants than male in order to maintain that ratio.

Are you just deliberately obfuscatory or are you this stupid?

Circular logic ftw? I just stated that you aren't actually demonstrating what I asked for. You stated "harming minorities". I'm saying show me. Some article in which you state "suggests" it in regards to a specific subset, and that the article itself says is "open" isn't really conclusive evidence. That's all beside from the fact that affirmative action, like anything else, isn't perfect. I don't think anyone has suggested that. It is however a beneficial way to help redress deficiencies and ensures that companies/schools/etc cannot systematically target a population for exclusion.

Moreover, put up evidence that affirmative action is effective at remedying the problems you use to justify it like I asked you to.

When did you ever ask me to do so prior to this post? Apologies if I missed it. That being said:

http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2009/Ja ... tudy.shtml

According to Murrell and Jones's findings while studying the subject, "Affirmative action policies have resulted in increases in the representation of women and minorities across all levels of employment in the United States and within organizations that were once exclusively male." and "Affirmative action has led to higher employment participation rates, increased earnings, and gains in educational attainment for women and minorities."

Further, "Among federal contractors, who are required to meet affirmative action standards under Executive Order 11246 and Executive Order 11375, the proportion of women holding official and manager positions increased from 18% in 1981 to 25% in 1991." Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

Not when those racists' arguments are actively harmful to racial relations. Presumably, affirmative action will have done its job in a hypothetical future in which there is no further racism. Policies that continually draw attention to race as a determining feature, even when it's totally irrelevant are counter-productive to achieving such a future.

Racist fucks are going to be racist no matter what. Someone that blames minorities for not getting a job were likely racist beforehand. I know if I don't get hired for a job, I'm not going to leap to say, "It must be because I'm not black!" I'm going to say, "I must not have been a proper fit, best qualified, etc." But what do I know, I'm not a racist fuck looking for an excuse. Affirmative action being present or gone isn't going to change that, and all you've done is further set back the very people that we should be trying to help. Again, AA doesn't mean you have to hire someone because they're a minority. They still have to be qualified for the job. If Joe Smith thinks Mary Smith got hired because she's a girl, then he's just looking for a scapegoat.

[ray245]

Perhaps it can be said that some people are not viewing certain races or ethnic group as inferior per say, but dislike the cultural influence a person from a different minority group.

They may simply think that certain ethnic group is better for other kinds of jobs, like the weird mentality that African Americans are a much better chance to be a rap artist than a white.

Take from example, when you are hiring a teacher and is given a choice between a person coming from a fairly liberal background as opposed to a ultra-conservative background, there is a higher chance you will choose a person from a liberal background even if he or she is not a liberal-minded person. Essentially, you are stereotyping the overall performance of a certain ethnic group, as opposed to looking the person individually.

Some people may find that a person of African descent would definitely be a loud and rude person simply due to how they are being stereotyped as. Some may view a person of Asian descent to be more conservative and too quiet simply because this is how most Asians are supposed to be like. Basically, they are trying to create a sort of personality profile based on the background of people.

One major reason I hate people trying to create some sort of culture as a ethnic group, and being proud of that. It only serves to reinforce certain stereotypes.

Although down here in Singapore, many Singaporeans would prefer a white over the majority group or any local here. People tend to view that a white would tend to have a greater chance of success through his or her out of the box thinking that they find most locals might not have.

[Akkleptos]

Without an interview, Prof. Oreopoulos suggested, there is no chance for those with foreign-sounding names to show employers that their English is fluent and their social etiquette appropriate.

This may be a legitimate concern for the hiring companies. After all, they do have to take care that their business is being done right. Still, while quick, generalisation (as previouly said before is a sure path to mistake, be it swift or slow). So, sweeping judgement is not acceptable, especially on a surname basis.

All of you guys talking about AA: this is Canada we're talking about, where Affirmative Action (which IS indeed a race-based bias, BTW) isn't as pervasive. Whatever happened to pre-hiring skill-tests? Personally, if I had a company that were hiring new employees, I couldn't care less about the skin colour or the particular kind of the people I hired, as long as those treats didn't keep them from doing their job the way it were supposed to be done...

[Lagmonster]

So, all of the people who say that the need for affirmative action is long gone ... what say you to this? Looks to me like there is still broad, systemic racism directed against non-whites, and that the playing field is still not level, by any means. And this is in the GTA: the most multi-cultural city in the world. Don't tell me it would be better in lily-white Iowa or some place like that.

I wonder what the results would be if we saw foreign-sounding white names in comparison. Say, some particularly foreign-sounding, tongue-curling Polish or Greek names. I'm sure there is racial prejudice involved in the differences in callbacks, but I wonder if as much, more, or less tribal prejudice is nestled in there too.

[Teebs]

So, all of the people who say that the need for affirmative action is long gone ... what say you to this? Looks to me like there is still broad, systemic racism directed against non-whites, and that the playing field is still not level, by any means. And this is in the GTA: the most multi-cultural city in the world. Don't tell me it would be better in lily-white Iowa or some place like that.

I wonder what the results would be if we saw foreign-sounding white names in comparison. Say, some particularly foreign-sounding, tongue-curling Polish or Greek names. I'm sure there is racial prejudice involved in the differences in callbacks, but I wonder if as much, more, or less tribal prejudice is nestled in there too.

My grandfather was an Eastenr European asylum seeker when he came to Britain and he got some shocking racism. Whether it's still the case I don't know. I have a foreign name and have lived in 3 countries, but seem to be able to get job interviews (which proves nothing).

In terms of general racism, the UK does seem to have a difference in attitudes between Eastern European (i.e. white) immigrants and non-white ones. Objection to the Eastern Europeans seems to be much more based on 'they're taking our jobs' while people seem to think non-white immigrants are burdens on the benefit system. Thsi might well feed through into employers' attitudes too. e.g. "Mr Kowlaeski is good because he'll work very hard for low wages, but Mr Abdul is bad because his type live of benefits" (at a sub-conscious level in most cases I'm sure).

[Master of Ossus]

Except you're the one that stated the opening claim back on the first page. You stated that it harmed minorities, but you haven't actually proved it that I can see. If anything, it sounded like the people involved weren't properly qualified in the first place, but I could have misread it.

Except that they were obviously admitted via an affirmative action program. I don't know what you mean by "properly qualified" in this context, either: if you have a preference for hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified one then that seems like an affirmative action policy to me.

Moreover, by all means: what are the minimum qualifications for law school? For a top firm? They probably meet some minimal level of qualification to attend the law schools in question, but are not capable of performing at a high level once they are admitted to the institution. They're probably minimally qualified to work at a top firm (e.g., pass the bar exam; get hired), but that doesn't mean that they'll be capable attorneys at such a high level.

Either way, I'm not seeing evidence of any sort of blanket detriment to minorities. If anything, their percentages in the workplace and schooling has risen over the past some odd decades. That doesn't sound like widespread harm.

Yet they are consistently held from rising in their professional fields, and only the self-fulfilling nature of affirmative action allows you to make such a claim (e.g., if I hire only blacks, then of course the percentage of blacks in the workplace will rise). Unfortunately, those people all leave big firms almost immediately when they're found not to hack it.

Did I put a timeframe on it? Historical and systemic discrimination doesn't arbitrarily end at some specific point in time.

Yet affirmative action must.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opini ... le_popular

Kenyon College apparently does, or did. There are several others that I saw that either have or are considering doing similar to reshift the demographic imbalances.

The University of Richmond has (or at least had in 07) a 51 to 49 percent student body ratio (51% being female) but rejects far more female applicants than male in order to maintain that ratio.

Conceded, although your response to the original question is still important: the "historical imbalance" model of affirmative action has no method for reasonably defining when to terminate affirmative action programs, and moreover may be unreasonable from a fairness perspective because the people harmed in the past are not the same as those who are benefited, today. Indeed, it's particularly suspect because while women may be a discrete and insular class for purposes of constitutional review, the descendants of women are obviously not.

Circular logic ftw? I just stated that you aren't actually demonstrating what I asked for. You stated "harming minorities". I'm saying show me. Some article in which you state "suggests" it in regards to a specific subset, and that the article itself says is "open" isn't really conclusive evidence.

Until this post you hadn't even put up a token response when challenged to explain what was unsatisfactory about the article--your only comment about it was that it was "apparently" unsatisfactory. Indeed, your original post in response to my post including this study showed a total lack of comprehension of the study!

Here your only response to it is to suggest that it states that it's an "open" question--of course it is--this is an academic paper published in a Law Review Journal. But the "open questions" that the paper references are NOT related to the fundamental statement that law firm hiring preferences for minorities are harmful to those minorities. The study concludes that there's a plausible link between affirmative action policies at the law firm level and low levels of minority partnership and that "aggressive racial preferences at the law school and law firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and may, in the end, contribute to the continuing white dominance of large-firm partnerships," that firms should stop looking for "quantity" of minority applicants, that "Current policies at law schools have the effect of dramatically lowering black grades in law schools and worsening black chances of passing the bar[;] [r]educing preferences at law schools
on a systemic level is one way to improve these outcomes" and (most directly) that "What firms need to acknowledge is that their current 'diversity' hiring practices are harmful to their putative beneficiaries and self-defeating for the firm’s long-term diversity goals." What the fuck kind of statement are you looking for in an academic paper?

That's all beside from the fact that affirmative action, like anything else, isn't perfect. I don't think anyone has suggested that. It is however a beneficial way to help redress deficiencies and ensures that companies/schools/etc cannot systematically target a population for exclusion.

http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2009/Ja ... tudy.shtml

According to Murrell and Jones's findings while studying the subject, "Affirmative action policies have resulted in increases in the representation of women and minorities across all levels of employment in the United States and within organizations that were once exclusively male." and "Affirmative action has led to higher employment participation rates, increased earnings, and gains in educational attainment for women and minorities."

So what? The point isn't whether or not it raises matriculation rates--the point is what happens to them once they matriculate? It's circular to say that the policy of intentionally preferring blacks over other applicants for admissions processes raises admissions rates for blacks and therefore helps them. The study that I posted demonstrated that increasing hiring rates for blacks was actually harmful to their long-term career paths because they were disproportionately driven from their original position. It also showed that admitting black students to prestigious law schools was detrimental to them because their grades in those institutions were not competitive with those of their peers, and that only a small fraction of them would graduate with good grades.

If you honestly view the entire purpose of affirmative action programs as being to raise minority enrollment rates, then that only very poorly corrects past discrimination against them and particularly if the enrollment itself is actively harmful to the students enrolled because of affirmative action.

Further, "Among federal contractors, who are required to meet affirmative action standards under Executive Order 11246 and Executive Order 11375, the proportion of women holding official and manager positions increased from 18% in 1981 to 25% in 1991." Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

Again, my study specifically responded to the claim that it raises rates of hiring minorities (contractors are plausibly different anyway, though: the minimum qualifications for being a contractor may well be similar to the minimum qualifications for being effective).

Racist fucks are going to be racist no matter what. Someone that blames minorities for not getting a job were likely racist beforehand.

Evidence?

I know if I don't get hired for a job, I'm not going to leap to say, "It must be because I'm not black!" I'm going to say, "I must not have been a proper fit, best qualified, etc." But what do I know, I'm not a racist fuck looking for an excuse. Affirmative action being present or gone isn't going to change that, and all you've done is further set back the very people that we should be trying to help. Again, AA doesn't mean you have to hire someone because they're a minority. They still have to be qualified for the job. If Joe Smith thinks Mary Smith got hired because she's a girl, then he's just looking for a scapegoat.

Ding ding ding! People looking for reasons why they weren't hired find an easy scapegoat in affirmative action policies, and thus become "racist fucks" because affirmative action policies exist. So you take someone who may not be a racist but is looking for an excuse (which seems like a pretty typical move after being turned down for a coveted position) and then make them into overt racists. Thanks, affirmative action!

Moreover, I'm sick of your bullshit excuse about still having to be qualified for the job. Meeting the minimum qualifications for many positions does not make you the most valuable candidate--it may not even make you an effective one in many, many industries.

[Darth Wong]

Two questions:

1) Why are we talking about AA in schools? This whole article is about job-seeking, not university enrollment. I agree that AA in schools is seriously counterproductive, since schools are generally meritocratic. Job interviews, on the other hand, are almost inevitably affected by personal prejudice and bias, even if it not conscious.

2) Why would anyone expect the situation to be different with Eastern Europeans? They're ethnically distinct and have been the butt of many racist comments and prejudices over the years. Hitler exterminated millions of them, after all. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a similar bias existed with names like "Gojkovic". People like a comfortable name, like "Smith".

[apocolypse]

I'm done with the round and round bit. I'm going to make it short, simple, and to the point, I don't have the desire to nitpick at irrelevancies or address strawmen. And I'm sure, conversely, you feel the same MoO.

Minority representation has risen over the past few decades. We can all see it statistically. There is absolutely nothing wrong with ensuring people in minority groups are represented. The original study only focuses on one particular subset and does not address the benefits of AA as a whole. That's my issue. And all AA does is give racists another excuse, at best. Trust me, it's not like people become racist because of AA. They already were.

[Mobiboros]

2) Why would anyone expect the situation to be different with Eastern Europeans? They're ethnically distinct and have been the butt of many racist comments and prejudices over the years. Hitler exterminated millions of them, after all. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a similar bias existed with names like "Gojkovic". People like a comfortable name, like "Smith".

To add to this, it's not just Eastern Europeans. There was a time in the US where a large influx of Irish met with signs that said "Irish need not apply". After them the Italians met with the same. Ironically often from the Irish who's just experienced it.

You might be able to show that it's not even "White" names so much as "English" names specifically that are shown preference. ie. People would prefer Smith or Peterson over O'Flaherty or Antonelli.

[Fr33ze]

Right résumé, wrong name

Changing one's name doesn't help much either if the interviewer is a racist, and imagine the result when they feel being "fooled" after seeing the face.

An applicant with qualifications and self-respect will choose whom they are going to work with too, because it's not a one-way market.