[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Subreal

The alternative is remove affirmative action, and not hire based on race, gender, etc. While I agree that their may be some closet racist hiring managers etc out there, I think its way blown out of proportion. And I don't think people consider the possibility that if some race is really unrepresented in a particular profession field, maybe there just isn't a lot of people of that race interested in that field, it's not always racist.

Judging from history, if you remove affirmative action, people will still hire/enroll based on race, gender or other personal preference. Removing affirmative action will only remove the government telling companies how to hire based on race/gender (via quotas, etc), but it won't remove the practice of people giving or not giving positions to other people based on factors other than qualification. I agree that the (obvious) alternative is to simply not hire based on race/gender. But without some type of government mandate, or at the very least, social consequences, people seem unlikely to do that on their own. That's another thing too that I failed to mention in my previous post. It's not only the government mandate that's driving these companies to hire people from underrepresented groups, but it is also a consideration of social and sometimes even financial consequences.
For example, a lot of beauty supply stores that cater to black women are actually owned by Koreans. It used to be obvious as when you walk into these stores you'll see a Korean at the counter or stocking the shelves. But more and more when you walk into some of these stores nowadays, you'll see nothing but black employees despite that it is still Korean owned. Why? The stores that were staffed with black employees were making more money because the customer base, which is mostly black, feels more comfortable buying black hair products from people who look like them. So it's actually a financial bottom-line decision for the owners of a lot of these stores to put someone black at the counter. I'm not saying it is right or fair that the customers should feel more comfortable dealing with someone from one particular race or another, but it is a reality, and companies sometimes make hiring decisions because of things like that and not necessarily because of some government mandate. They consider how the public will view them as a company, and particularly their customer base.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Subreal

The alternative is remove affirmative action, and not hire based on race, gender, etc. While I agree that their may be some closet racist hiring managers etc out there, I think its way blown out of proportion. And I don't think people consider the possibility that if some race is really unrepresented in a particular profession field, maybe there just isn't a lot of people of that race interested in that field, it's not always racist.

Judging from history, if you remove affirmative action, people will still hire/enroll based on race, gender or other personal preference. Removing affirmative action will only remove the government telling companies how to hire based on race/gender (via quotas, etc), but it won't remove the practice of people giving or not giving positions to other people based on factors other than qualification. I agree that the (obvious) alternative is to simply not hire based on race/gender. But without some type of government mandate, or at the very least, social consequences, people seem unlikely to do that on their own. That's another thing too that I failed to mention in my previous post. It's not only the government mandate that's driving these companies to hire people from underrepresented groups, but it is also a consideration of social and sometimes even financial consequences.
For example, a lot of beauty supply stores that cater to black women are actually owned by Koreans. It used to be obvious as when you walk into these stores you'll see a Korean at the counter or stocking the shelves. But more and more when you walk into some of these stores nowadays, you'll see nothing but black employees despite that it is still Korean owned. Why? The stores that were staffed with black employees were making more money because the customer base, which is mostly black, feels more comfortable buying black hair products from people who look like them. So it's actually a financial bottom-line decision for the owners of a lot of these stores to put someone black at the counter. I'm not saying it is right or fair that the customers should feel more comfortable dealing with someone from one particular race or another, but it is a reality, and companies sometimes make hiring decisions because of things like that and not necessarily because of some government mandate. They consider how the public will view them as a company, and particularly their customer base.