How "real" is racial or gender favoritism?

[harjit]

One of the things racialists and antis argue about are the benefits that accrue to minorities. On the anti side, I think the belief is that these benefits are just nominal, hardly anything beyond a small gesture.

My question: Is this the case? Or, are they real and substantial, and cause great pain to those who don't qualify (such as white males)?

Coming from a minority community in Canada, the National Capital Region in particular, I can attest to the way minority women receive a boost in their workplaces out of proportion to their experience and abilities. It's not merely a sliver of an edge, as we antis tend to believe affirmative action to be, but often jaw-droppingly substantial. It's practically a stereotype in our ethnic community, the 28-year-old Indian chick in a government department being promoted over the heads of white males who have worked there for 20 years. Meanwhile at home she has a pushover of a white husband who earns less than her.

The above pattern is also found among Chinese-Canadian females.

I know of many such examples, including the case of my own female cousin who endured a period of crying herself to sleep at night after being forced to lay off a number of subordinates the age of her father. My own sister, who is bright but not exceptionally so, is in a very cushy job in a time when there are very few cushy jobs.

One more thing about these girls, they are seldom in jobs where they have to constantly be concerned with profitability. They are usually in government, or non-profit orgs funded by the government or, if in the corporate sector, they tend to be in such areas as PR or HR.

I'm not saying these are dumb girls, many have MBAs or other kinds of Masters degrees, or are such professionals as CAs (that's CPA in Americanese), or engineers etc. But so are all the young white males I know, and most are having a tough time getting the salaries or security they want, or even just getting a job if they are unemployed.

I'm not arguing here, but just trying to find out the deal really is. I'm mostly familiar with the Canadian cities of Ottawa and Toronto, and curious about how things are in the States and the U.K.

[Thomas_Sankara]

I can't speak for the entire USA, but I know that affirmative action is pretty much illegal in California (which is ironic, since the perception of our state is that it's a very liberal socialist state, when it's pretty conservative in many ways, except drug policy):

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/03/local/la-me-court-affirm-20100803

Advertisers are allowed to encourage minority applicants, but they aren't allowed to give preference based on race, sex, Nationality, etc. etc.

Which is why I always find it funny so many complain about affirmative action in a state where it doesn't even exist, and where if it does, they can sue and claim money for "emotional distress".

To me, affirmative action is more of a strawman argument than anything.

[harjit]

I can't speak for the entire USA, but I know that affirmative action is pretty much illegal in California (which is ironic, since the perception of our state is that it's a very liberal socialist state, when it's pretty conservative in many ways, except drug policy).
That's good to hear.

[Preserve Racial Diversity]

To me, affirmative action is more of a strawman argument than anything.
Overrepresentation of Blacks in the Federal Work Force (http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2007/001_blacksFY2006.htm)

[Jake Featherston]

I can't speak for the entire USA, but I know that affirmative action is pretty much illegal in California

No, its not. Affirmative action is banned within the public sector, not the private. And almost everyone works in the private sector.

Which is why I always find it funny so many complain about affirmative action in a state where it doesn't even exist

I'm sorry, but you're really quite an ignoramus if you believe afirmative action "doesn't even exist" within this state. And its not like this is the first time I've explained this to you, now is it?

To me, affirmative action is more of a strawman argument than anything.

Its still legal in the public sector in every state but California, Michigan, Colorado, and Washington. And at the Federal level. And in the private sector, where approximately 90 percent of employed Americans work.

Maybe this link will help to clarify your confusion about affirmative action in California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_209

[Jake Featherston]

That's good to hear.

Too bad its not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_209

Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity...Private universities and colleges, as well as employers, are not subject to Proposition 209 and many continue to administer traditional affirmative action programs.

[Thomas_Sankara]

I'm sorry, but you're really quite an ignoramus if you believe afirmative action "doesn't even exist" within this state. And its not like this is the first time I've explained this to you, now is it?


Well since you're the one making the claim, I'm guessing you have some evidence to back up that affirmative action in the private sector is widespread? maybe even just a study?

[Jake Featherston]

Well since you're the one making the claim, I'm guessing you have some evidence to back up that affirmative action in the private sector is widespread? maybe even just a study?

If I were to claim Tokyo was the capitol of Japan, would I need to cite a source for that too? What kind of a braindead leftist moron doesn't think affirmative action is real? Why do liberals get so angry when people discuss getting rid of it, if it has almost no impact on our society, as you seem to be implying?

I actually did search for statistics on how widespread private sector affirmative action is, and could find none, yet at every website I visited, most of which were sponsored by people who favor affirmative action, there was a prevailing assumption that affirmative action is an ubiquitous feature of the American landscape. Which, of course, it is. As seemingly every person I have ever encountered is aware of, other than you, apparently. :tard:

Oh, and during my Googling, I discovered Nebraska has also banned public sector affirmative action.

[President Barbicane]

One of the most important problems with affirmative action is that the current federal rules prohibit using a test if whites outperform blacks by a certain amount on the test. In practice this means that any sort of examination is illegal (even in California).

For many jobs g-loaded (IQ) tests are the best available indicators of performance (they are not perfect indicators, but they are the best indicators we've got); because these tests are illegal it is much more difficult to hire the best candidate regardless of race.

This policy doesn't make any sense if you think about it, but for some reason it's the solution that people find the most acceptable. Some day I would like to figure out what these people are thinking, but for now I'm completely perplexed.

[harjit]

Its still legal in the public sector in every state but California, Michigan, Colorado, and Washington. And at the Federal level. And in the private sector, where approximately 90 percent of employed Americans work.
Why do private companies practice it if they aren't forced to? Isn't it in an employer's interest to hire the best candidates they can find without regard to race or gender?

Not asking rhetorically.

[Allegheny]

Why do private companies practice it if they aren't forced to? Isn't it in an employer's interest to hire the best candidates they can find without regard to race or gender?

Not asking rhetorically.

Racial diversity breaks down worker solidarity.

Most of these positions don't require any great skill. It isn't like they are choosing special forces commandos or neurosurgeons.

As protection against discrimination lawsuits brought by sleazy Jewish class-action lawyers.

Managerial types don't really care about the bottom line, but increasing the size of their fiefdoms. And they are the ones who are in the trenches, making the decisions on whom to hire and whom to fire. Unqualified hires who are beholden to them are surely attractive...

[WillieBrennan]

Here's a good link that exposes some of this garbage.

http://www.adversity.net/

[Errigal]

Why do private companies practice it if they aren't forced to? Isn't it in an employer's interest to hire the best candidates they can find without regard to race or gender?

Not asking rhetorically.

Their federal government, and many other jurisdictions, often require proof of a "diverse" workforce in order for a company bidding on a contract to qualify. This can then trickle down to the contractors hired by the private company hired by the level of government with such a diversity hiring policy. A friend of mine had a form sent to him in Canada asking what was the racial mix at his company when he bid on a contract with a US major league sports team. That shows how far down the line these things can go.

[Fiona]

I don't envy males today.