Diversity for diversity’s sake is not a good goal

[AZrailwhale]

Lizard88 still whining they showed her the door at the elite school she worked at for being a bigot.



The problem is, you can't have a 'race-blind" society if you still have white people making all the decisions. It's not just the outright racists like you who are the problem, Lisa, it's the more subtle racism of being sympathetic towards people who remind of us ourselves. That's why most people don't date outside their race. Not necessarily because they are racist, but because we see the world as reflections of ourselves.



How many whites get in because they are "legacies", athletic scholarships, connections, etc. I can't tell you how many dumb stumps who had no business being in college I went to school with... and most of them were white. But as long as they were paying the money, they were allowed to keep going.



Or they would still hire their drinking buddy.

Over my career, I've seen one black person who I thought had no business being in the job that she was in. I've seen a ton of white people who had jobs they had no business being in because they were friends with the boss, they were a relative of the boss, or they were sleeping with the boss.



But what constitutes "equal Standards".

I've told this story about this one boss I had. I was at a company where three women left our Purchasing Department over the course of a summer.

A Chinse-American woman who had been with the company for nine years.
An African-American woman who had been with the company for two years.
A white intern who had been with the company for a few months.

Now- when we held department lunches for each of these women when they left, guess which one the General Manager, a white guy in his fifties, made time to actually attend?

Come on, you can guess....

Yup. The intern. Because she was young, white and pretty.

When you can get rid of all the biases in management, and come up with a system that is totally fair in evaluating employees, then you MIGHT have a point.


For those playing along at home, I run a business where I write resumes. I freely admit to being a large part of the problem. The person who has the best written resume is more likely to get the interview, even though the best resumes are written by someone else.

Legacies are a tiny percentage of the whole. Their connections may get them in the door, but if they can’t cut the mustard, they wind up unemployed and broke.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Um, okay, let's look at that.

The military desegregated in 1948. So they've been "Woke" before you were born. Before that, blacks served in segregated units with white officers who were not considered the best and brightest. These units came out of World War II, some of them having distinguished themselves.

In the 1970's, a lot more opportunities were opened to women in the military. Despite some issues, these women have done a fine job.

In the 1990's, Clinton stopped discrimination against gay soldiers with "Don't ask, Don't Tell". Eventually, Obama got rid of that and let gays serve openly.

It would seem more diversity has been GOOD for the military.

(And since only one of us has a DD214, you are probably better off quitting now.)

The desegregated military was a meritocracy, at least With the exception that the “West Point Mafia” protects and promotes its members. Everybody else had to compete in an environment where one mistake can scuttle a career.
Women gradually got access to more jobs, but to this day ther are excluded from some jobs die to physical capabilities. But in general women got little respect because it was recognized that they were recipients of AA.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Because poor everyone didn't have it written into the constitution they were 3/5th of a white person. Come on, you can't pretend that even the poorest white immigrant off the boat doesn't have an IMMEDIATE advantage due to institutionalized racism in this country.



Hmm... Okay, first I don't know if the Russians have had any Pogrom's lately. If he did, he should be damned happy that he was allowed into this country and has all the opportunities of only selectively belonging to a minority.

As opposed to blacks, who were brought over here in chains, subjected to 400 years of slavery and apartheid, and only now are we giving them half a chance to catch up.



Well, here's the main difference. As immigrants, they had a CHOICE to come here or not.
Here's the other difference, you "otherness" as an immigrant kind of disappears after a generation or two.

Here's a better question, why does your immigrant relative DESERVE to jump the line? (And I would say the same of my immigrant relatives)

Please point out where in the constitution it says that blacks are three fifths of a person.
The background of the compromise was that the slave states wanted their slaves of any color to be counted as a person for census purposes giving the slave states an advantage over the free states. The free states didn’t want slaves counted at all because they were property, not voters. The slave states had more power so the three fifths compromise came about.

 

[JoeB131]

Legacies are a tiny percentage of the whole. Their connections may get them in the door, but if they can’t cut the mustard, they wind up unemployed and broke.

So you could say the same thing about AA enrollments, right?

The desegregated military was a meritocracy, at least With the exception that the “West Point Mafia” protects and promotes its members. Everybody else had to compete in an environment where one mistake can scuttle a career.
Women gradually got access to more jobs, but to this day ther are excluded from some jobs die to physical capabilities. But in general women got little respect because it was recognized that they were recipients of AA.

Actually, they are letting women into the infantry now.

Point was, at some point, the bigots argued against diversity in the military, and were proven wrong. Lizard88 still thinks it is, but that's because she's a racist cow.

Please point out where in the constitution it says that blacks are three fifths of a person.
The background of the compromise was that the slave states wanted their slaves of any color to be counted as a person for census purposes giving the slave states an advantage over the free states. The free states didn’t want slaves counted at all because they were property, not voters. The slave states had more power so the three fifths compromise came about.

Wow, that's an interesting rewriting of history... but wrong. The racism was there all along.

Keep in mind, only propertied white males could vote, but the census counted everyone. It was always about keeping black people down.

 

[initforme]

Our workforce and military are as strong as they've ever been. The premise of the he thread is kind of bizarre. Do people actually think about these things?

 

[Turtlesoup]

I wonder what the backlash would be if a business declared itself "ethnically neutral" in it's hiring practices?

LAWSUITS

 

[Lisa558]

Our workforce and military are as strong as they've ever been. The premise of the he thread is kind of bizarre. Do people actually think about these things?

No they are not. It is only logical that when you prioritize skin color over competence, you don’t necessarily end up with the most qualified workforce or military. One only has to look toward the idiotic, incompetent Vice President to see what can happen when one makes racist decisions in selecting people for roles.

It’s past time for liberals to stop being so racist and give EQUAL consideration to candidates regardless of race.

 

[initforme]

We're talking about jobs and applicants. Employers are flooded with highly qualified good candidates. Of all skin colors just like you have said. Why spend your time considering such an unimportant thing. A job opens someone fills it. If they don't work out someone else fills it. The best workers rarely stay at a job for more than a year or two. They are always looking for better and loyalty has NO place in the workforce anymore.

 

[Lisa558]

We're talking about jobs and applicants. Employers are flooded with highly qualified good candidates. Of all skin colors just like you have said. Why spend your time considering such an unimportant thing. A job opens someone fills it. If they don't work out someone else fills it. The best workers rarely stay at a job for more than a year or two. They are always looking for better and loyalty has NO place in the workforce anymore.

No, it’s far from unimportant when white people have built-in disadvantage to getting a job because employers are favoring blacks, and the result of that is the the best candidate does not necessarily get the job. The person with the “favored” black skin, even when less qualified, gets the job.

Liberal companies are full of high-level managers who are mediocre because the company used a racist policy of favoring blacks when deciding upon promotions rather than competence. Is that saying no blacks are competent, and would have gotten the job anyway? Of course not. But anyone who denies that the workforce or military is lessened when they select blacks over whites, and de-emphasize competence, because they decided they ”need” more blacks, is another liberal in denial.

 

[JoeB131]

No they are not. It is only logical that when you prioritize skin color over competence, you don’t necessarily end up with the most qualified workforce or military. One only has to look toward the idiotic, incompetent Vice President to see what can happen when one makes racist decisions in selecting people for roles.

It’s past time for liberals to stop being so racist and give EQUAL consideration to candidates regardless of race.

Um, your party put Dan "Potatoe" Quayle in as Vice President. Not to mention Bush Jr., Palin and, oh, yeah, Trump. But that's okay, they were WHITE.

Harris is far more competent than any of them. You don't nominate the Mayor of Methsville, Alaska and then complain that Harris wasn't "qualified".

No, it’s far from unimportant when white people have built-in disadvantage to getting a job because employers are favoring blacks, and the result of that is the the best candidate does not necessarily get the job. The person with the “favored” black skin, even when less qualified, gets the job.

Um. Yeah. True story. I've been in the civilian workforce for 30 years now... Every person who ever made the decision on whether to hire me was white. I've never been interviewed for a job by a person of color, not even when I worked for the Japanese company, because they had a couple levels of white managers in between.

I've met only one black person who I thought was completely incompetent at her job. I've met a bunch of white people who were incompetent, because they were friends of the boss, sleeping with the boss, a relative of the boss, or just had a really slick looking resume and talked a good game.

Liberal companies are full of high-level managers who are mediocre because the company used a racist policy of favoring blacks when deciding upon promotions rather than competence. Is that saying no blacks are competent, and would have gotten the job anyway? Of course not. But anyone who denies that the workforce or military is lessened when they select blacks over whites, and de-emphasize competence, is another liberal in denial.

Again, I've seen more incompetent white managers than incompetent black managers. Come to think of it, I've seen very few black managers at all.

 

[Coyote]

No, it’s far from unimportant when white people have built-in disadvantage to getting a job because employers are favoring blacks, and the result of that is the the best candidate does not necessarily get the job. The person with the “favored” black skin, even when less qualified, gets the job.

Liberal companies are full of high-level managers who are mediocre because the company used a racist policy of favoring blacks when deciding upon promotions rather than competence. Is that saying no blacks are competent, and would have gotten the job anyway? Of course not. But anyone who denies that the workforce or military is lessened when they select blacks over whites, and de-emphasize competence, because they decided they ”need” more blacks, is another liberal in denial.

Are you implying the best candidate can’t be black or most incompetent managers are black?

 

[Lisa558]

Are you implying the best candidate can’t be black or most incompetent managers are black?

As you’ll see, I said “not necessarily,” but if you want to keep discussing this with me, you’ll have to stop implying I’m a racist. It’s a false, nasty accusation that leftists have been making for years against anyinr who doesn’t support racist policies favoring blacks.

Now, to your question: while the best or most competent MAY indeed be black, they are only 15% of the population and thus the odds are only 15% that the best candidate will be black. Why, when selecting a manager, should employers limit themselves to a small subset of the population, and select the best from among that subset, rather than looking at ALL candidates, regardless of race? THAT would be the non-racist approach.

 

[Coyote]

No, the beauty of having it by the top 5% BY SCHOOL is that one is competing against one’s own cohort. So for example, the students in public schools in DC’s 8th district - all poor blacks - are all on “equal footing.”

They would not be competing against the affluent in NW DC whose parents can pay for tutoring, private schools, etc.

I would agree but go by GPA.

Yes, and I’ve posted it many times. Look at the AAMC data as to the likelihood of getting admitted to med school with a specific GPA and test score. Grades and scores that have 80% of blacks get in have only 20% of whites, and really mediocre grades/scores that still admit 50% of all blacks have all but a few whites laughed out of the place.

There is a minimum GPA and test score required for admittence. Are you saying that 80% of blacks admitted are done so below that standard?

Your typical insinuation that I’m a racist shows that you’re just another leftist that uses disgusting accusations against decent, kind, and thoughtful people who simply disagree with you.

Why are YOU showing such favoritism toward helping poor blacks, with uneducated parents, climb out of poverty - and thus continue the racist AA policy - instead of poor EVERYONE, with uneducated parents, do the same, regardless of color?

I favor supporting ANYONE in those circumstances regardless of race. In my state it happens to be poor whites by far, who are first generation students.

Why, for example, shouldn’t a serious, motivated, bright JEWISH boy with parents who didn’t complete high school because they fled Russian pograms, and now lives in a fourth-floor walk-up tenement with them in poverty, get just as much chance to achieve “middleclassdom” as a poor black kid who has LOWER grades and scores?

Show me an example of a poor Jewish first gen college student refused admittance under that program because he wasn’t black.

My father was every bit as deserving as a black kid, as was my uncle, and my mother, and my aunt. All grew up poor, with immigrant parents. Why should ANY of them have to give up their chance for a better life because leftists think black kids, even with worse grades and scores, are more deserving?

I don’t know how old you are but I suspect your parents are of a generation that came of age prior to many of these programs. What I don’t understand is why you think black kids only and specifically don’t deserve this. Nothing about other groups like women who are helped by AA.

OK….I will look up some charts. Next posts.

And if you are in higher Ed and srill claiming that blacks don’t get n over better qualified whites, you are either lying or in massive denial.

Ok, let’s see the charts.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

As you’ll see, I said “not necessarily,” but if you want to keep discussing this with me, you’ll have to stop implying I’m a racist. It’s a false, nasty accusation that leftists have been making for years against anyinr who doesn’t support racist policies favoring blacks.

Now, to your question: while the best or most competent MAY indeed be black, they are only 15% of the population and thus the odds are only 15% that the best candidate will be black. Why, when selecting a manager, should employers limit themselves to a small subset of the population, and select the best from among that subset, rather than looking at ALL candidates, regardless of race? THAT would be the non-racist approach.

Wasting your time using logic.

 

[Lisa558]

Coyote

Whenever you prioritize the selection of managers, or base promotions, on factors other than competence and ability, you likely don’t end up with the best.

And it doesn’t just have to be about race. I worked for a company that was very big on gays, and to a lesser extent blacks. If you were gay, your odds for getting hired, or getting promoted, were significantly higher than if you were straight. (Word got around, and the place was about 30% gay.) And if you were gay AND black, you were golden - promoted right up the ladder to the top, regardless of ability.

The result? The most bloated, mismanaged place I ever worked. The white and/or straight subordinates to the incompetent black and/or gay managers ended up doing their jobs, and making the decisions they were unable to.

The turnover among the white and straight subordinates was massive - and there was nobody who remained after a few years. In the meantime, there were managers there who had been there for 15 years and more, and why? Because they knew they couldn’t get an equivalent job elsewhere.

Most mismanaged company I ever worked for.

 

[JoeB131]

Whenever you prioritize the selection of managers, or base promotions, on factors other than competence and ability, you likely don’t end up with the best.

And it doesn’t just have to be about race. I worked for a company that was very big on gays, and to a lesser extent blacks. If you were gay, your odds for getting hired, or getting promoted, were significantly higher than if you were white. (Word got around, and the place was about 30% gay.) And if you were gay AND black, you were golden - promoted right up the ladder to the top, regardless of ability.

The result? The most boated, mismanaged place I ever worked. The white and/or straight subordinates to the incompetent black and/or gay managers ended up doing their jobs, and making the decisions they were unable to.

I've never worked at a place where there wasn't an employee who thought he or she was the hero of the saga and everyone around them was incompetent.

The turnover among the white and straight subordinates was massive - and there was nobody who remained after a few years. In the meantime, there were managers there who had been there for 15 years and more, and why? Because they knew they couldn’t get an equivalent job elsewhere.

Most mismanaged company I ever worked for.

Yet they hired you...

The worst manager I ever had was Jewish, in the first job I had out of the Army. In a branch that employed 26 people, we went through 96 employees in the less than four years I worked there before they closed down the branch and the company itself collapsed a year later. By your "logic", I should assume that Jews make bad managers.

(Actually, there were a bunch of reasons why this guy was a bad manager, and some factors were completely out of his control, but his religion had little to do with it, except maybe his being too cheap to pay his employees well.)

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Coyote

Whenever you prioritize the selection of managers, or base promotions, on factors other than competence and ability, you likely don’t end up with the best.

And it doesn’t just have to be about race. I worked for a company that was very big on gays, and to a lesser extent blacks. If you were gay, your odds for getting hired, or getting promoted, were significantly higher than if you were white. (Word got around, and the place was about 30% gay.) And if you were gay AND black, you were golden - promoted right up the ladder to the top, regardless of ability.

The result? The most boated, mismanaged place I ever worked. The white and/or straight subordinates to the incompetent black and/or gay managers ended up doing their jobs, and making the decisions they were unable to.

The turnover among the white and straight subordinates was massive - and there was nobody who remained after a few years. In the meantime, there were managers there who had been there for 15 years and more, and why? Because they knew they couldn’t get an equivalent job elsewhere.

Most mismanaged company I ever worked for.

It's now a world that values virtue signaling (hypocritical lying) over competence and commitment to excellence.

 

[Lisa558]

I would agree but go by GPA.

Nope. You have to include test scores too. It provides a more complete picture.

There is a minimum GPA and test score required for admittence. Are you saying that 80% of blacks admitted are done so below that standard?

No, that’s not what that means. It means that the minimum GPA and test scores are reduced for black students.

I favor supporting ANYONE in those circumstances regardless of race. In my state it happens to be poor whites by far, who are first generation students.


Show me an example of a poor Jewish first gen college student refused admittance under that program because he wasn’t black.

I can’t do that because because they don’t report data by religion. Jews are lumped in with whites, who must score higher than blacks. A Jew with a 3.4 is NOT getting into any medical school in this country, where many blacks will.

I don’t know how old you are but I suspect your parents are of a generation that came of age prior to many of these programs. What I don’t understand is why you think black kids only and specifically don’t deserve this. Nothing about other groups like women who are helped by AA.

Yes, they came of age before these programs, and thus they weren’t rejected from college in favor of blacks with poorer grades.

You just did the libersl thing again and called me a racist, so I’m not going to respond to your nasty accusations. Stop it.

Ok, let’s see the charts.

I showed them to you upthread - charts from the AAMC showing how much easier it is for blacks to get in to med school than whites, even when blacks have much worse scores. Blacks with a specific GPA and MCAT get in the majority of the time when those same measurements have the majority of whites kicked to the curb.

It‘s time for liberals to stop employing racist policies when selecting students for admission, and intentionally divising false tests designed specifically for blacks to score higher.

What about Harvard and their “personality test,” which they used to reject highly qualified Asians? They said Asians scored higher on “unlikeability.” It‘s pretty dammed racist when leftist educators design a completely subjective test designed so that the unwanted race - Asians in this case - are judged to score lower, and thus they can reject them?

(My doctor is Asian, and she is the BEST doctor I’ve had since I graduated from the pediatrician’s office.)

 

[Lisa558]

Wasting your time using logic.

You’re right! It’s like that saying about teaching a pig to sing.

 

[JoeB131]

As you’ll see, I said “not necessarily,” but if you want to keep discussing this with me, you’ll have to stop implying I’m a racist. It’s a false, nasty accusation that leftists have been making for years against anyinr who doesn’t support racist policies favoring blacks.

Now, to your question: while the best or most competent MAY indeed be black, they are only 15% of the population and thus the odds are only 15% that the best candidate will be black. Why, when selecting a manager, should employers limit themselves to a small subset of the population, and select the best from among that subset, rather than looking at ALL candidates, regardless of race? THAT would be the non-racist approach.

Again, you should also eliminate anyone who is a friend of the boss, a secret lover of the boss or the relative of the boss. They are an even SMALLER subset of the population, but they seem to get promoted far above their abilities more often than people of color do.

Of course, as someone who writes resumes as a business, I can tell you the ENTIRE system of hiring people is broken, not just the AA Part of it.

Let's start with the first step- Resumes. The best resumes are written by professional resume writers. Not that people lack merit because they can't write resumes, but because resume writing is a skill most people don't have. They only need a new resume once every five years on average, and you aren't going to get good at something only doing it once every five years. Of course, economics being what they are, a white person is going to be more likely to afford to hire a professional resume writer for $300.00.

The resumes are then fed into a hopper called an ATS system. They pick out keywords, and the resume with the most keywords will often get to the top before the resume with the best experience.

Next step is the interview.. Hate to say this, but interviewing is whack, yo! Think about this, you would never marry someone after two dates, but we hire people or take jobs after two interviews, knowing damned well that both sides are trying to put on their best face.

The problem with this process is not just that people are openly racist, but because when most of the people making the hiring decisions are white, they are going to be more favorably inclined towards white people. Greg will always get a callback before Jamal, no matter where he went to school, what experience he has, or even who wrote his resume. In the interview, you are always going to relate better to people who remind you of yourself.

So it's less about 'competence' and "qualifications" than overcoming the inherent biases in the system.