Why is it ok for companies/universities to be racist?

[Subreal]

Your race should NOT influence a decision on whether you get hired to a company or admitted to a university. It should be based solely on your personality and ability. However there are tons of major companies and universities that are proud to say they are "Affirmative Action". This literally means that the company/university is being racist because they are aiming to hire people from specific races.

This also means that companies/universities regularly chose a less qualified candidate just because of their race. That's racist.

So, basically why have we accepted this form of racism today and why are companies/universities allowed to practice this? Some even meeting quotas of aiming to hire x many people of "under-represented" races. You don't fix racism by creating it.

How are you going to tell me reserving x% of "Made Up Company's" jobs for "lower-represented races" is not racist in itself?

[Subreal]

Your race should NOT influence a decision on whether you get hired to a company or admitted to a university. It should be based solely on your personality and ability. However there are tons of major companies and universities that are proud to say they are "Affirmative Action". This literally means that the company/university is being racist because they are aiming to hire people from specific races.

This also means that companies/universities regularly chose a less qualified candidate just because of their race. That's racist.

So, basically why have we accepted this form of racism today and why are companies/universities allowed to practice this? Some even meeting quotas of aiming to hire x many people of "under-represented" races. You don't fix racism by creating it.

How are you going to tell me reserving x% of "Made Up Company's" jobs for "lower-represented races" is not racist in itself?

[Seul]

Is this an American thing?

[Seul]

Is this an American thing?

[Subreal]

Originally Posted by Seul

Is this an American thing?

Probably, and it is accepted all over the country. Like, companies and universities proudly say they are "affirmative action". Basically if you were born of one of these races then they consider that when hiring you and it gives you bonus points.

[Subreal]

Originally Posted by Seul

Is this an American thing?

Probably, and it is accepted all over the country. Like, companies and universities proudly say they are "affirmative action". Basically if you were born of one of these races then they consider that when hiring you and it gives you bonus points.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Seul

Is this an American thing?

I think it's only called "affirmative action" in the States, but other countries have similar laws often called "equal opportunity laws" or something like that. Canada has the Employment Equity Act, for example, and it was designed to ensure that Aboriginals, people with disabilities and "visible minorities" get employment opportunities. It's pretty much the same thing as what they call "affirmative action" in the States.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Seul

Is this an American thing?

I think it's only called "affirmative action" in the States, but other countries have similar laws often called "equal opportunity laws" or something like that. Canada has the Employment Equity Act, for example, and it was designed to ensure that Aboriginals, people with disabilities and "visible minorities" get employment opportunities. It's pretty much the same thing as what they call "affirmative action" in the States.

Originally Posted by Seul

Is this an American thing?

haha my thoughts exactly

Originally Posted by Seul

Is this an American thing?

haha my thoughts exactly

[NOBLE]

They're doing it because it is mandated by law. I'm not sure to what extent though. From my understanding, the person from whatever underrepresented group (it's not just race, but also gender and sometimes sexual orientation) still has to qualify, or at least meet the minimum qualification requirements for that position. So I'm not sure that necessarily means "companies/universities regularly chose a less qualified candidate just because of their race." I read somewhere that white women (next to Asians) are actually the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. It's not necessarily always about race, and the underrepresented still has to be qualified.

[NOBLE]

They're doing it because it is mandated by law. I'm not sure to what extent though. From my understanding, the person from whatever underrepresented group (it's not just race, but also gender and sometimes sexual orientation) still has to qualify, or at least meet the minimum qualification requirements for that position. So I'm not sure that necessarily means "companies/universities regularly chose a less qualified candidate just because of their race." I read somewhere that white women (next to Asians) are actually the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. It's not necessarily always about race, and the underrepresented still has to be qualified.

[Subreal]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

They're doing it because it is mandated by law. I'm not sure to what extent though. From my understanding, the person from whatever underrepresented group (it's not just race, but also gender and sometimes sexual orientation) still has to qualify, or at least meet the minimum qualification requirements for that position. So I'm not sure that necessarily means "companies/universities regularly chose a less qualified candidate just because of their race." I read somewhere that white women (next to Asians) are actually the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. It's not necessarily always about race, and the underrepresented still has to be qualified.

That's still a problem. Gender, race, sexual orientation, etc should not be a factor at all in getting hired. Yet this is accepted and applauded.

[Subreal]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

They're doing it because it is mandated by law. I'm not sure to what extent though. From my understanding, the person from whatever underrepresented group (it's not just race, but also gender and sometimes sexual orientation) still has to qualify, or at least meet the minimum qualification requirements for that position. So I'm not sure that necessarily means "companies/universities regularly chose a less qualified candidate just because of their race." I read somewhere that white women (next to Asians) are actually the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. It's not necessarily always about race, and the underrepresented still has to be qualified.

That's still a problem. Gender, race, sexual orientation, etc should not be a factor at all in getting hired. Yet this is accepted and applauded.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Subreal

That's still a problem. Gender, race, sexual orientation, etc should not be a factor at all in getting hired. Yet this is accepted and applauded.

You're right. It is a problem. In an ideal world, those things would never be a factor in someone getting hired, and the only factor should be a person's qualification. However, the world has never been ideal and things like gender, race, relations, etc have always been considerations in people helping out others or giving others a position. This isn't something new that started with affirmative action or that affirmative action created. Affirmative Action, ironically, was actually created (by an executive order of President Kennedy) to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance and that race, gender, etc IS NOT a factor in someone getting hired by the federal government. Prior to that, it was pretty much only white contractors getting federal jobs and race WAS a factor.
Affirmative Action isn't perfect. As a black man, I don't want to be hired or obtain enrollment in a university simply because someone had to fill a quota. I want to be hired/enrolled because I'm qualified. However, I think what's way worse than getting picked only for the fulfillment of a federally mandated quota (which I still have to qualify for) is NOT getting picked despite having as much as or sometimes even more qualifications than other candidates simply for the color of my skin. That is what was happening in some institutions prior to affirmative action. Affirmative Action might not be the best way to try to address that sort of problem, but what's the alternative?

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Subreal

That's still a problem. Gender, race, sexual orientation, etc should not be a factor at all in getting hired. Yet this is accepted and applauded.

You're right. It is a problem. In an ideal world, those things would never be a factor in someone getting hired, and the only factor should be a person's qualification. However, the world has never been ideal and things like gender, race, relations, etc have always been considerations in people helping out others or giving others a position. This isn't something new that started with affirmative action or that affirmative action created. Affirmative Action, ironically, was actually created (by an executive order of President Kennedy) to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance and that race, gender, etc IS NOT a factor in someone getting hired by the federal government. Prior to that, it was pretty much only white contractors getting federal jobs and race WAS a factor.
Affirmative Action isn't perfect. As a black man, I don't want to be hired or obtain enrollment in a university simply because someone had to fill a quota. I want to be hired/enrolled because I'm qualified. However, I think what's way worse than getting picked only for the fulfillment of a federally mandated quota (which I still have to qualify for) is NOT getting picked despite having as much as or sometimes even more qualifications than other candidates simply for the color of my skin. That is what was happening in some institutions prior to affirmative action. Affirmative Action might not be the best way to try to address that sort of problem, but what's the alternative?

[Subreal]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

You're right. It is a problem. In an ideal world, those things would never be a factor in someone getting hired, and the only factor should be a person's qualification. However, the world has never been ideal and things like gender, race, relations, etc have always been considerations in people helping out others or giving others a position. This isn't something new that started with affirmative action or that affirmative action created. Affirmative Action, ironically, was actually created (by an executive order of President Kennedy) to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance and that race, gender, etc IS NOT a factor in someone getting hired by the federal government. Prior to that, it was pretty much only white contractors getting federal jobs and race WAS a factor.
Affirmative Action isn't perfect. As a black man, I don't want to be hired or obtain enrollment in a university simply because someone had to fill a quota. I want to be hired/enrolled because I'm qualified. However, I think what's way worse than getting picked only for the fulfillment of a federally mandated quota (which I still have to qualify for) is NOT getting picked despite having as much as or sometimes even more qualifications than other candidates simply for the color of my skin. That is what was happening in some institutions prior to affirmative action. Affirmative Action might not be the best way to try to address that sort of problem, but what's the alternative?

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.

[Subreal]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

You're right. It is a problem. In an ideal world, those things would never be a factor in someone getting hired, and the only factor should be a person's qualification. However, the world has never been ideal and things like gender, race, relations, etc have always been considerations in people helping out others or giving others a position. This isn't something new that started with affirmative action or that affirmative action created. Affirmative Action, ironically, was actually created (by an executive order of President Kennedy) to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance and that race, gender, etc IS NOT a factor in someone getting hired by the federal government. Prior to that, it was pretty much only white contractors getting federal jobs and race WAS a factor.
Affirmative Action isn't perfect. As a black man, I don't want to be hired or obtain enrollment in a university simply because someone had to fill a quota. I want to be hired/enrolled because I'm qualified. However, I think what's way worse than getting picked only for the fulfillment of a federally mandated quota (which I still have to qualify for) is NOT getting picked despite having as much as or sometimes even more qualifications than other candidates simply for the color of my skin. That is what was happening in some institutions prior to affirmative action. Affirmative Action might not be the best way to try to address that sort of problem, but what's the alternative?

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.

[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.