Brewmeister
Sponsor
The problem back in the '60s (and even today) is that it's way to easy to circumvent anti-discrimination laws.
I am vehemently against affirmative action in principle. However, AA seeks to establish a baseline that is 'closer' to a balance than anti-discrimination laws could achieve alone.
For example let's assume I am an employer in a lower middle class area where the demographics are about 50% white & 50% assorted minorities. However my company employs only 5% minorities.
On the surface it appears that I am racist. But if you look at my immaculately kept hiring records, all of the minorities I rejected were for legitimate reasons: Lack of transportation, not enough experience, poor employment record, health risk (smoker), etc... On paper, none of these minorities were rejected for being a minority.
Dig a little further & find out that all my job postings were in a local paper delivered to the 'white' side of town. 80% of the interviews were white applicants. Job fairs were held at the same place & time as KKK rallies. All circumstantial, but you get the point.
In steps the law & says I have to increase my minority staff to a conservative 25%. Appealing to my better sense of capitalism, I'm going to make sure I'm selecting the best qualified minorities and placing them in positions where I'll the the biggest ROI. The law doesn't prevent me from rejecting someone who is not qualified for the job, and it also doesn't prevent me from recruiting minorities from elsewhere when there are not enough qualified locals. It simply forces me to put aside my prejudices when making some of my hiring decisions.
Is it perfect? not in the least. But it's a lot closer than it was.
As for eradicating racism, I've done my part. On the last 2 Censuses (Censi?), I entered:
Race:Human
And I plan to do the same next year. Wanna join me? We should start a movement!! :scruff:
I am vehemently against affirmative action in principle. However, AA seeks to establish a baseline that is 'closer' to a balance than anti-discrimination laws could achieve alone.
For example let's assume I am an employer in a lower middle class area where the demographics are about 50% white & 50% assorted minorities. However my company employs only 5% minorities.
On the surface it appears that I am racist. But if you look at my immaculately kept hiring records, all of the minorities I rejected were for legitimate reasons: Lack of transportation, not enough experience, poor employment record, health risk (smoker), etc... On paper, none of these minorities were rejected for being a minority.
Dig a little further & find out that all my job postings were in a local paper delivered to the 'white' side of town. 80% of the interviews were white applicants. Job fairs were held at the same place & time as KKK rallies. All circumstantial, but you get the point.
In steps the law & says I have to increase my minority staff to a conservative 25%. Appealing to my better sense of capitalism, I'm going to make sure I'm selecting the best qualified minorities and placing them in positions where I'll the the biggest ROI. The law doesn't prevent me from rejecting someone who is not qualified for the job, and it also doesn't prevent me from recruiting minorities from elsewhere when there are not enough qualified locals. It simply forces me to put aside my prejudices when making some of my hiring decisions.
Is it perfect? not in the least. But it's a lot closer than it was.
As for eradicating racism, I've done my part. On the last 2 Censuses (Censi?), I entered:
Race:Human
And I plan to do the same next year. Wanna join me? We should start a movement!! :scruff: