[quote name='mykevermin']Well, audit studies are very telling things. Let's use that to penalize those who are shown to exhibit racial/ethnic preferences instead of instituting a quota system (which is, I bet you didn't know, a far more prominent tenet of Affirmative Action legislation than this 'quota' crap you keep harping on).
So John Q. Employer gets audited: two completely identical candidates (education, pedigree, experience, even # of children and the size of their lawn if necessary) apply for a job. The only difference? One is white, one is minority (typically black, but you can vary if it suits you). See who gets the callback or the job offer. Now, one incident alone is not very telling - but several audits on the same place can demonstrate racial/ethnic bias.
So let's give John Q. Employer a warning for a first offense. No fine. Not yet. Show him how your audit works, and that, without exception, John Q. defaulted to hiring the white candidate 3 times out of 3, all things being equal. Warn him that, if a followup continues to show this pattern, he can and will be fined for violating EOE laws.
No racial quota, no racial preference. Hows'at for policy? Here's the catch if you're scared that this means employers will default towards always hiring a minority candidate: give them the same warning w/ a fine followup if they show preference for any racial/ethnic group. Offer the black candidate the job and never the white? Preferential racial treatment; Bakke v. California would be proud of this policy.
That's the wonder of an audit: not everyone gets it, but if done thoroughly, employers will behave in order to comply with these laws. Better yet? If they're afraid of preferential racial treatment in any direction, they'll have to rely on (get this!) hiring the most qualified candidate for the job! They'll be looking at skills and abilities, rather than disregarding an application because the first thing they see is the name "Jamal" on the top!
While these sorts of audits are done, they're so infrequent, and ultimately toothless in terms of reaction, that nobody cares if they get caught showing racial preferences.
I'd also suspect that it's a case-by-case issue as well, as it has to relate to the kind of business itself (e.g., hiring females more than males for waitstaff at Hooters) or the location it is in as well.[/quote]
I can concede that a sytem like that may indeed work. I really don't know. But I'd like you to address the situation, that I've dealt with second hand, where employers get very weary of having to have far more documented reasoning to fire a minority (even a woman) than a white male, because it's so easy to be threatened with a lawsuit claiming racisim. Is that not a valid fear of an employer? What can we do to address those types of issues?
Native Americans or Asian Indians?
Native Americans.
Eh, I see some kind of weak-kneed admittance that racism exists in this day and age, coupled with an unprovable "it matters less now than it did 30 years ago" maxim. I'd argue that racism is plenty prevalent in all aspects of society, and it's simply more candy-coated than it was before (again, which is why we express outrage when someone calls Obama "boy" - it's less common today, and a relic of racism of the past).
We've been through this before. You've made it very clear, with all your links to studies, and research, that you think Racisim is a huge problem in america today. So be it. Maybe it is. But I argue that running around crying about it, pointing out silly misnomers like "boy" being said only perpetuate the problem. The fact that you did not create a thread for Obama calling his grandmother a "typical white woman" is telling.
What begins as a valid concern for equality in this country has turned into a crusade against racisim that brings with it a growing list of double standards which can be nearly as dangerous as racism itself. And guess what? That's how I, and many others feel. And we don't need studies and academics to validate those feelings. I'm sure you'll call that ignorance, but people are always going to feel things without academic validation, so you better find a way to work around that.
You seem to be acutely and intentionally blind to the fact that many of the causes you champion based on your so-called "statistics" often have very real side effects, that left unchecked, can create just as many problems.
The difference between you and me, again, and as always: I can back up my claims with data and facts.
No, the difference between you and I is that my reality isn't defined by people with academic after their names, or studies, or statistics, or research papers, or past legal cases. As you've pointed out multiple times, yours is.
But the main difference between you and I, is that anyone that chooses not to construct their reality in such a superficial way, you clearly deem ignorant, think less of, and think yourself better. I've met many like you. Where as, I emphasize the importance in my life of accepting others ways of viewing the world as just as valid as mine.
ing morons. But I already knew that.
