Affirmative Action

ok - i might start a shitstorm with this one, but I'm curious on how to handle this.

I'll start by saying that I do see why Affirmative Action is in place, and feel there definitely was a need for it, when it was instituted. As a minority woman it certainly opened the doors for me to get to where I have gotten professionally. I do wonder if it is outmoded now, but I live in an area where Minorities do get jobs like everyone else does, so that may be skewing my perspective. I definitely would like to think I have been hired on the strength of my skills, experience, and personality, as opposed to filling some minority slot, and I believe that has been the case throughout my career.

My partner is a moderate white guy who does skew conservative on certain issues. He works for a Utility, in a department that just doesn't attract minorities for whatever reason. But because they are an Equal Opportunity employer, they do practice quota hiring for his department. In other departments they have plenty of minority employees, way more than "quotas" would dictate, so I don' t think the company itself is anti-diversity. He has an issue with EOH for the following reason:

He has worked with great black teammates that knew what they were doing, and how to do it safely, when he worked at other branches. But in the branch he is at now, he is working with a black team-mate that is underqualified and under-performing. He believes that this team-mate will never get fired, because he fills the quota. And he "knows plenty of white guys that are qualified that would kill for the job, but won't get it, because this guy is holding the space".


If this is in fact the truth, and not just one person's perspective, I feel it's more racist to keep an underperformer on based on the color of their skin and not the content of their actions. In his job, safety is key and it's a high-risk job. If one guy is making things less safe for the rest of the crew, even if he is a quota hire, could you not fire him and make another quota hire, if necessary?

Even that seems vaguely racist, through the lens of Today's context, but I guess i'm trying to formulate an adequately liberal viewpoint that makes sense to me, and can help me to give him the perspective, that Affirmative Action is not necessarily the problem, but it's the policy in practice that needs to be addressed.

just like your partner's, that a particular minority is unqualified and incompetent in the job but can't be fired. All I can ever say to that is that if true, incidents of the incompetence need to be documented. Supervisors in particular who buy into the "that employee can't be fired because of the Quota" are idiots and don't understand why EOH exists. No incompetent employee should be kept on, but it happens a lot. Think of all the incompetent white males out there who are in little or no danger of losing their jobs, the very ones who created this incredible economic mess we're in.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of unfairness out there in very many ways.

If he sucks that bad, start documenting the hell out of it. Race is irrelevant if you are incompetent.

That's one thing about my current job. It's majority minority, and my Department Manager is a minority women, if you are fucking up, you are out the door, no excuses.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I happen to trust this whitefolk's opinion. after all he is my whitefolk, and I know where he's been and who he is and who he's worked with in the past, and how he's felt about them.

I do agree with you on the filter of perception. It's funny after we had that little conversation he was so concerned that he was being racist, and hoped I didn't think so.

I basically said, if he sucks at his job, he sucks at his job, his color is irrelevant, but maybe you should think about why you feel you may be racist for pointing out that this particular black guy sucks at his job.

Black folks and white folks at my job suck all the time, and they get fired for it. And black folks and white folks are star performers at my job all the time and get promoted for it.

Bryant

I often hear conflicting, and rather dubious claims for both. Just curious what yours are.

What an ugly, ugly, disgusting post. Absolutely horrible. It's stuff like this that keeps racism alive and well, not to mention bigotry.

If someone is unqualified or lacking in performance in his job, steps should be taken to improve his performance and/or begin the process of replacing him. Equal opportunity hiring is just that, equal opportunity, not excessively unfair opportunity. It's like saying that welfare is bad because of the people who abuse it. No, if welfare is bad, it is the fault of the people administering it.

you've stated in a better way what I feel. I should use the welfare analogy as my jumping off point next time we discuss.

I think enough regulations are now in place to protect the minorities and forced quotas are not necessary. A company that shows discrimination in hiring practices enough to warrant a concept such as affirmative action, would be easy enough to identify nowadays and have court action taken against. As it stands in our current times, I think affirmative action has created unfairness rather than the fairness it once was integral in providing.

I often wonder if it is just my experience to date.

I'm from New York originally - and what i saw when I was there, makes me wonder if it isn't still necessary. It wasn't until I moved here to Atlanta that I saw black-owned business outside of the "ghetto" and black men and women in leadership positions that weren't "the token".

At the same time I've worked at organizations down here that had a culture of mediocrity because they were deathly afraid of firing people (of any color) because they didn't want any lawsuits. And I think that is part of the Affirmative Action administrative boondoggle too.

I think affirmative action has created unfairness rather than the fairness it once was integral in providing.

Or is it just a feeling?

Back when I ran the data centers at chase I was in charge of interviewing and hiring engineers.

One of the things I wanted to do, as did the company, was have a workforce that reflected the population. I did not however hire based primarily or solely on that basis.

The whole time I was there I only interviewed one woman who was in no way qualified to do the job and did poorly in the interview (though we later absorbed chase people when bank one merged with them and ended up with two really awesome ladies I kept on).

We only had two african american guys working for us, one of which I had a hard time firing because he had claimed he was discriminated against previously and when we had issues he brought that up. Took two years to finally get him fired - which ticked off a lot of other people because they were doing their job (he would do things like leave the site for hours to go do other things, on a regular basis, but even then HR did little except to have us have meetings once a week with him, and that was but one issue). He actually outlasted me there as I switched over to a coding job so I could work from home.

The larger issue being faced though is that there are more majority owners and higher ups due to previous discrimination, thus not giving people a generation or two to get into such positions - and once there folks tend to bring in friends/relatives/friends of friends which gives them a leg up.

We need to keep an even playing field, but it needs to be done in an intelligent manner.

Like any law(s) I think there are times to tweak, review, and debate it's effects and merits - and especially how it is supposed to work.

Our own government could use a lesson. One of the guys I worked with was gay - he came to our company after the US govt got rid of him for being gay. He was an interpreter (arabic), part iranian, who worked on a lot of sensitive matters. I don't know how our own government can discriminate while telling us it is illegal to so...

I thought the SCOTUS ruled on that a couple of years ago, in regard to a program at the University of Michigan. I really kind of doubt that the utility your partner works at is actually using quotas to hire minorities; and therefore, if the incompetent person in question isn't getting fired, it's for other reasons. When it comes to personnel issues, it's unlikely that your partner is in possession of all the facts. Any Human Resources department worth its hide will be handling such a matter confidentially.

Edit: I found this: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html

"Landmark Ruling Buttresses Affirmative Action
"But in a landmark 2003 case involving the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies-one of the most important rulings on the issue in twenty-five years-the Supreme Court decisively upheld the right of affirmative action in higher education. Two cases, first tried in federal courts in 2000 and 2001, were involved: the University of Michigan's undergraduate program (Gratz v. Bollinger) and its law school (Grutter v. Bollinger). The Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rate students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified. The undergraduate program, unlike the law school's, did not provide the "individualized consideration" of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action.

"In the Michigan cases, the Supreme Court ruled that although affirmative action was no longer justified as a way of redressing past oppression and injustice, it promoted a "compelling state interest" in diversity at all levels of society. A record number of "friend-of-court" briefs were filed in support of Michigan's affirmative action case by hundreds of organizations representing academia, business, labor unions, and the military, arguing the benefits of broad racial representation. As Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority, "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

So it wasn't exactly quotas that were deemed illegal, but given that UM's point system was less restrictive than quotas, I suspect that quotas have indeed been ruled illegal.

Affirmative Action and Quotas are not the same. Quotas ARE illegal. If that employee is not being disciplined it IS possibly another reason for this. If the employer is afraid to discipline or fire this person it is probably because the employer doesn't understand the guidelines.

and will get the info to back it up.

I do know that my partner is out risking his life every day, and if there is soemone on his crew that increases that risk, I would like to see that addressed.

by Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke 1978 Supreme Court decision (438 U.S. 265), but race can still be a consideration.

Tim Wise has an article on your topic found here--http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/RacismStupid.html

I'm glad that a white guy has chosen to address the topic, but as a brown girl, I'm not sure he hit it square on the head. It's a bit abrasive to me actually.

My fundamental point is this. Affirmative Action back in the day, has opened up the doors for me to appear as a viable candidate for jobs now. However, it's still my talents and experience that get me the jobs and promotions I want (as opposed to can get). I want to believe that is all me, color or gender irrelevant.

And I work in a male-dominated business. The force of my personality, and my technical ability earns the respect of my colleagues, and I can honestly say I've never come up against race or gender bias on the job. I've had to smack a few boys in line for getting sexually inappropriate, or on rare occasions culturally insensitive, but I've never felt like I had to kowtow to whitey to get ahead or even like I had to overperform to prove my worth as a human being. If i'm an outstanding performer, it's because it's who I am and how I was raised, and whether the playing field is filled with white, black, yellow or brown faces, men, women or somewhere in-between - I rise to the top, because I'm just that bad-ass.

I find it annoying that any white person, regardless of familiarity, will immediately blame Affirmative Action for company shortcomings and decide unilaterally that AA is no longer needed.

I have no question of your skill level or competence, but, like stated above, how much information relevent to this case is available.

considering he and the guy in question are peers. It maybe that he is being kept on for some other reason entirely, and my partner is presuming it is Affirmative Action.

That would have nothing to do with AA.

so the person black or white is fired? I've worked with under performers of all races. I haven't seen a time yet when an under performer was retained because of their race. If the documentation is there anyone can be terminated.

Affirmative Action does not keep jobs for black people that don't do their jobs. I don't buy that this person is being kept on to fill a quota and a hard working white person is being left out in the cold.

Or more specifically, he believe the guy isn't getting fired, because the company doesn't want his department to appear prejudiced. And his department is 98% white male. There are black males, and they do have the one bad-ass lesbian chick that puts the boys to shame more often than not.

The intriguing thing is that his particular job is also woefully understaffed.

I guess the more curious point to me is why doesn't his field have more black males in it in general (i understand why women might not be all that keen to do it).

forget it.

the guy fears being labeled racist for even documenting the deficiencies. Something along the lines of "Well, everyone screws up they just nitpicked and wrote down every little thing about me because I am ( insert race here)"

(regardless of race). He told me one issue where they had a single dad on the crew. Now this particular job really isn't conducive to any sort of family life. you more often then not work 7 days a week, get called in at the last minute, have to work through the night, etc. it can make planning child-care a nightmare I imagine. The single dad was having problems managing that, altho some of the crew-wives were always willing to take care of his children when he had to go out on calls.

Anyway at one point, he had refused to come in on a call. Shortly after that he got fired for violating company safety policy for not wearing his seatbelt while in the truck.

obviously there is soem sort of basis for a discrimination suit there, but at the same time, if your family situation isn't conducive to your job, you may not be in the right job for you.

Poor and white? Get screwed.

I'm confused by your statement.

Because African Americans and other minorities are disproportionately poor in America, Affirmative Action is seen as a alternative to any attempt at promoting social/economic justice.

So the elite use race as a proxy for class--this is why the powers that be have no problem with a wealthy African American receiving preferences, but bristle at the thought of class based Affirmative Action. Though African Americans are proportionately more likely to be poor than whites (the legacy of our countries brutal past and racism that continues to this day,) poor whites greatly outnumber poor blacks in sheer numbers.

Therefore, race-based Affirmative Action is seen as a way to mollify the worst of our social unrest while posing a minimal threat to our ruling elites. In other words, Affirmative Action didn't keep W. Bush out of Yale; if it kept anyone out, it was some working-class schlub with no connections...

and to me makes more sense in context of Today, and some of what's ailing Affirmative Action in todays more racially progressive environment.

Also explains why a working class schlub would feel threatened by it.

NOTE: I AM NOT saying that racism doesn't exist. I am saying that racists (especially poor white working class ones) are pawns of the elite.

black. Yet when the affirmative action hire is white there never seems to be a problem. George W Bush and his ilk have been the beneficiaries of affirmative action for as long as this country has been around. Only then they called it being a white man in America. That form of affirmative action hasn't gone away to my knowledge.

Regards

After all, *I* didn't get to go to Yale or Harvard despite being a mediocre student (like, for example, John Kerry and W. Bush.) Yet I'm white. What's the difference between W. Bush and I? Answer = hereditary wealth.

A black wealthy student would get hit with the same affirmative action charge as well. This country has had affirmative action in one form or another since its founding they just called it other things. It's only when race was brought into it then you get concerns about "less qualified" people getting a leg up. That never seems to be a concern when the idiot son of a wealthy white man manages to get into an elite school despite being a dunce.

Regards