RE: Democracy, religion, women and equality. Justice demands affirmative action.
February 8, 2012 at 9:01 am
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2012 at 9:09 am by Darth.)
I've thought about it, and it for me it comes down to the issues that are causing the apparent need for AA in the first place, what they are, and whether they can be solved, for not just future generations, but the current population. What the underlying issues are will influence who should be responsible for fixing it.
A) does the need for it comes from the existence of bigoted employers or bigoted clientele, old boys clubs and the like...? Or
B) does the need for it come from an educational issue, is a particular subgroup not achieving the same grades as another and thus being denied opportunities?
C) Is it a cultural miscommunication issue? Different cultures have different communication rule, some stare you in the eye, some stare at your knees, some answer your questions right way, some wait a while and mull it over, what's polite in one culture is the height of rudeness in another, what the prospective employee does will affect his chances.
D) their own collective choice, is the employment/field of study contrary to the values/interests... held by a larger percent of people in a particular group (Less fundamentalists in the porn industry, less antitheists working at a religious bookstore being extreme examples)
E) is it a less direct cultural attitude thing? Does one group value on average value for example: academic achievement, hard work, obeying authority... more that another group?
...
For me it's the second issue that I have the most trouble with. If all races/genders are born equal (which I of course accept) then the top 15% of group A, and the top 15% of group B are (or at least, were) as good as each other, even if one group has lower test scores than the other. As they are unequal the lower scores must be down to environmental factors. It now comes down to whether or not the problem can be fixed for the current population. Is the group with the lower scores permanently screwed over? Has their previous experience (which led to the lower test scores) shaped them? Will their scores always be lower as a result even if the environments were now made equal?*
If that's not the case, if their score simply represents potential, then AA is most definitely the way to go**, the top 15% of the lower group, are equal to the top 15% of the better scoring group.
If permanent or long term damage has been done however, you are now forcing employers/unis... to take 'worse' employees/students (even though the lower quality is not the student/employees fault) over 'better' ones. People complaining about losing a position to AA I couldn't care less about, if the two groups were equal and everything was fair then they wouldn't have gotten the position anyway, if you're losing to AA then you're at the lower end of your group.
Basically it now comes down to who should have to foot the bill (assuming permanent damage has been done). We can force the employers to take worse employees*** and unis to take worse students. The government could pay reparations. Or neither, and the lower scoring group, through no fault of their own, pays the price. To me the first choice seems to me to be the lesser of three evils, even though it still feels wrong.
*I think it will end up being a mix of the two, permanent damage will have been done, but not all of the damage that has been done will be permanent.
**for public institutions, I'm not a fan of government intervention and the way I see it, if the damage that's been done is fixable, then the lower scoring students represent a better employment opportunity as their lower scores are deceptive, you're getting a better employee than a company that would refuse to hire them based on the scores alone, and bigoted employers, who won't employ even when the scores are equal, are REALLY losing out, let those companies die.
***By force I mean government mandates, market forces haven't forced it, and I don't think they will.
A) does the need for it comes from the existence of bigoted employers or bigoted clientele, old boys clubs and the like...? Or
B) does the need for it come from an educational issue, is a particular subgroup not achieving the same grades as another and thus being denied opportunities?
C) Is it a cultural miscommunication issue? Different cultures have different communication rule, some stare you in the eye, some stare at your knees, some answer your questions right way, some wait a while and mull it over, what's polite in one culture is the height of rudeness in another, what the prospective employee does will affect his chances.
D) their own collective choice, is the employment/field of study contrary to the values/interests... held by a larger percent of people in a particular group (Less fundamentalists in the porn industry, less antitheists working at a religious bookstore being extreme examples)
E) is it a less direct cultural attitude thing? Does one group value on average value for example: academic achievement, hard work, obeying authority... more that another group?
...
For me it's the second issue that I have the most trouble with. If all races/genders are born equal (which I of course accept) then the top 15% of group A, and the top 15% of group B are (or at least, were) as good as each other, even if one group has lower test scores than the other. As they are unequal the lower scores must be down to environmental factors. It now comes down to whether or not the problem can be fixed for the current population. Is the group with the lower scores permanently screwed over? Has their previous experience (which led to the lower test scores) shaped them? Will their scores always be lower as a result even if the environments were now made equal?*
If that's not the case, if their score simply represents potential, then AA is most definitely the way to go**, the top 15% of the lower group, are equal to the top 15% of the better scoring group.
If permanent or long term damage has been done however, you are now forcing employers/unis... to take 'worse' employees/students (even though the lower quality is not the student/employees fault) over 'better' ones. People complaining about losing a position to AA I couldn't care less about, if the two groups were equal and everything was fair then they wouldn't have gotten the position anyway, if you're losing to AA then you're at the lower end of your group.
Basically it now comes down to who should have to foot the bill (assuming permanent damage has been done). We can force the employers to take worse employees*** and unis to take worse students. The government could pay reparations. Or neither, and the lower scoring group, through no fault of their own, pays the price. To me the first choice seems to me to be the lesser of three evils, even though it still feels wrong.
*I think it will end up being a mix of the two, permanent damage will have been done, but not all of the damage that has been done will be permanent.
**for public institutions, I'm not a fan of government intervention and the way I see it, if the damage that's been done is fixable, then the lower scoring students represent a better employment opportunity as their lower scores are deceptive, you're getting a better employee than a company that would refuse to hire them based on the scores alone, and bigoted employers, who won't employ even when the scores are equal, are REALLY losing out, let those companies die.
***By force I mean government mandates, market forces haven't forced it, and I don't think they will.
