On the Supreme Court, Quotas and Reverse Discrimination

[hkellick]

Let me start by stating where I stand.

Yes, I am White, Male and Middle Class. This means, on average, I am more likely to find a job and more likely to get a raise and a promotion than a Woman or Colored Person. I acknowledge this as the fact that it is.

That said... I believe very strongly in fairness. Denying anyone a promotion simply because of their race or sex is wrong.

That's why I stand against Quotas.

Don't get me wrong. I DO believe that when deciding whether or not a person should be hired or promoted, your race, sex, age, sexuality or religion should simply not enter the picture. They are besides the point. What SHOULD be the point is whether or not you are the right person to get the job/move up in the company. Whether you have the qualifications, the experience, whether you would be the right cog to put into that particular place in the machine.

I also realize as I stated in the second paragraph above that that isn't necessarily true, that people do still account for race, sex, etc. when making these decisions. That's not right either.

But neither is Quotas. The predetermination that a certain percentage of the managers of a company or the employees of a company NEED to be a minority class, whether they're the best person for the job or no.

Looking at the argument the Supremes heard today, the issues as I understood it was that a group of firefighters were offered a chance for a promotion but because none of those who'd been noted as promotion-worthy were colored, the test was thrown out.

This is simply unfair. These were chosen as the best among their company, the people who deserved a promotion but because none of them was colored, they weren't even offered the CHANCE for a promotion? How is this fair? How is this right?

So, I agree with the Supreme Court. This was the right decision. It should not be legal to bar someone from a job or promotion simply because they're 'different', but it also shouldn't be legal to bar someone from a job or promotion simply because they're not. That's just plain nuts!

So.. yeah.
I'm done.

Comments

[john]

But what if there's a business need to reflect the makeup of the community? What then? Arguably, there is in firefighting, as in all public services. As a gay white middle class US/British male I realise it's frustrating that somebody else gets a +5 Sword of Skin Color, but this is one of the things that you and I need to suck it up and start examining our privilege. We start out with a +25% Interview Crit advantage, and a +5 Dex for our higher likelihood of extensive work experience because we are not ourselves bearing children, and all kinds of other stuff.

I totally don't want to derail you with terminology, but you might also want to think about your use of "colored person" -- my understanding is that "person of color" is currently the most inclusive phrase in the US. Here, "ethnic minority" is en vogue. "Colored person" tends to smack of 60s-era segregation to me.

[hkellick]

*chuckles at the RP terminology*

Firstly, I am SO not PC. I try not to be offensive to any group of people, but.. as far as whatever word is in vogue today.. *shrug*

Secondly, I acknowledge that White Privilege is a reality. And I don't think it should be. I recognize, though, that it is. That said, I don't think Quotas is the answer.

Thirdly, Beware the Daddy Track. For SOME Companies, the fact that you dare to have a child means the company knows you will no longer put them first and so you lose the opportunities for work experience or such, potentially.

[gblvr]

It's not entirely true to say that none of the firefighters who earned a promotion-level score was a minority; one was Hispanic, while the rest were white.

I agree that it's not fair to throw out the test results for that reason, but doesn't it seem odd to you that almost no minority firefighters scored high enough to earn a promotion? There is a problem there -- whether it's the firefighters themselves not studying enough, or the test being somehow off, something isn't right. I don't see how it's possible that *only* whites (with the exception of the one minority) scored high enough to pass -- statistically, that's not how things work.

[hkellick]

As far as I understand it.. the issue was that a group of people had been commended by their boss to take an exam that might lead the way to promotion. I don't know the details such as how many top scorers would have been given promotions or anything. That's all I know.

As far as... is it possible that only whites were offered the chance to promotion... maybe I'm being idealistic here, but yes.. I think it's totally possible. It's statistically a possibility.

As far as I understand the situation, this was not a long-standing issue where persons of colors never were afforded the opportunity to take the test and be promoted, that's what stood out in the fireman's minds. This one time, the only people who'd been offered up for promotion were white and the city through the test out as a result.

[gblvr]

One hundred firefighters were eligible to take the test; of those one hundred, 16 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter would have been eligible for promotion. (This is verifiable in multiple sources, by the way.) There was no recommendation, etc. -- it was a test. (And god, if it had been by recommendation as you said above, do you not see *that* as a problem? A group of mostly white firefighters being the only ones *recommended* for promotion?)

As to your second point -- being able to blindly accept that something like this is statistically possible is a function of privilege. The rest of us who are just as smart and capable as white men and used to being screwed over because we're women/transgendered/not white/differently-abled/or whatever it is they're looking for and routinely find in white men see it differently. The truth is that we can score just as well on tests and be just as qualified and *still* we don't get the jobs. You can see why we might be questioning this result, can't you?

And on point three: you're right -- it's not a long standing issue, but in this case the city refused to certify the test results, and instead threw them out to avoid a threatened discrimination lawsuit (on behalf of minority firefighters). If the test was as race-neutral as everyone is claiming, why not just certify the results and have done with it? In a city where 60% of the population is black, it's suspect when not one black makes the cut, and the city does something like this.

(As an aside -- your DW style makes it nearly impossible to make comments, as about a third of the comment box is covered by the sidebar. I had to go type this out elsewhere and c&p. Grr.)

[hkellick]

Clearly, I got the facts of it wrong. So thank you for that.

As far as.. was the test fair.. well... it seems that to answer that, we all need to stop making assumptions and look at the test. Was the test inherently biased towards White People?

If the answer is yes, then.. I agree, it's not a fair test and should be thrown out.

If the answer was no.. that the test was fair (and moreover if the process by which those firefighters allowed to take the test was determined was unbiased), and the people who passed it were predominantly white with one Latino... and the test got thrown out because there was only one non-white in the group... I'd still say I agree with the Supreme Court.

Do you have a link to the test? Is that out there somewhere?

[gblvr]

We read the case brief and the earlier court opinions for a class last semester, so I got plenty of practice with it. *g*

As far as I know, the test isn't available, and the city never certified it or the results, so I have a feeling we'll never know if there was a bias or not. What's funny is that they were trying to avoid a lawsuit, and got one anyway.... So the big point of contention, the test, is something that none of the courts ruled on -- all of the opinions focus on the outcome, which does look biased.

I think it's also important to note that this was not the slam dunk some of the pundits are claiming it to be -- the vote was 5-4, with a strongly worded dissent by Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens - three of whom are white men....

[hkellick]

Most Supreme Court decisions seem to be, in general, five to four. The fact that the last decision regarding strip searches was actually 8 to 1 was, I thought, far more noteworthy.

I'm not the least bit surprised, however, the five conservative judges sided with the firefighters and the four liberal judges sided with the city.

[ex_beautyofgr925]

I think john brings up an interesting point - that we don't start on equal playing fields.

One thing of interest... our company has a policy that we like to try to select from small-business and diverse subcontractors, when at all possible. These people are evaluated against other large subtractors in the field for their quality of service and abilities. Often things are just about equal, but the Small Business is given the nudge. Why? Because the playing field is not equal for Small Businesses, and supporting Small Businesses is healthier for competition and diversity, and the quality of product/services in the long run.

Quotas run very much like that, in my opinion.

[hkellick]

The thing with equal playing fields is the suggest that ANY Of us start on equal playing fields.

I can't speak for every white male out there, but I know I worked damn hard to get where I am now. I've received a couple of lucky breaks, but as far as I can tell, they've been more to do with the status of the company (and my own work experience) than they were my skin color and sex.

[gblvr]

I've received a couple of lucky breaks, but as far as I can tell, they've been more to do with the status of the company (and my own work experience) than they were my skin color and sex.

PRIVILEGE! Whether you want to believe it or not, you are wallowing in it! Have you ever read White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack? If not, I *highly* recommend it, as you don't seem to get that you're privileged, and yes, you have advantages that minorities do not, simply because you're white.... I'm not trying to be offensive -- I'm trying to help you be *less* offensive because I think you're a decent guy and I don't want you to get slammed for this.

[ex_beautyofgr925]

I tend to agree with gblvr that it's a matter of privilege that you don't see it. Maybe that's because I'm female and have been treated as less desirable/valuable/intelligent by people even after proving myself through the standard tests, etc. That said, I've oodles of privilege and opportunity that are not automatically awarded to women of color.

I also have to question the fact that the 16 were predominantly white. If it's a matter of statistics or the fact that these firefighters were the "best", is it possible that there is something outside of the test (or written into the test itself, perhaps) that automatically puts people of color at a disadvantage? Could socioeconomic influences already affect their education and professional levels, which holds them back from the same opportunities that are afforded to caucasians? And if that's the case, if minorities are still held back by systems of integrated oppression and institutionalized racism, then aren't quotas a way of ensuring that *some* minorities get a chance to beat those hurdles?

And it's true that there are issues of class at work here, too. I grew up lower-middle class and have pushed my way up. I'm clearly able to see privileges I'm afforded now at my current salary that were not in reach to me when I was younger. That said, class issues also tend to fall harder against racial and female minorities.

The quota does not set every white male back. It does not throw every minority forward. It is a way to help *some* break past institutionalized discrimination, and honestly, as long as they've been around, they've not been enough to prevent social stigmas.

Take, for instance, Sonya Sotomayer, and all the critics who indicated that she was only up a pick for a justice because she was a female minority. Why was that brought up? Why were her merits and work history questioned? Her years of blood and sweat are excused away by people who assume Obama simply wanted to fill a "type".

[damned_colonial]

Some playing fields are more equal than others. If you don't recognise that, then you might like to think a little harder about your privilege.

[invisionary]

I've no doubt you've busted your ass to get where you are. Just one thing though - you could have done everything you've done, but were it not for being white, male, and heterosexual, it's quite possible you wouldn't have made it anywhere. That's privilege at work. It may seem like you got where you are because of what you've done, but the problem in society is that who you are is what makes people consider what you do. Persons without privilege often don't even make it in the door, no matter how good they are.

[hkellick]

I can't disagree with this.

It seems like this is a game of "What Ifs" and like zorkian below, I do find it difficult to look outside of my experience because my experience DEFINES my perspective.

So it's possible along the way I got a couple of hidden breaks.

As I said above, I'm not arguing White Privilege exists.

[invisionary]

But that's the thing - it's more than just a couple of breaks. You grew up white, and with a certain class background that gave you opportunities that are not anywhere as readily afforded to people without those privileges. You probably weren't told very often you couldn't do something because of your race or gender. It's not just the active racism or sexism that got you or I where we are - it's everything. It may not seem as pervasive, but it really is.

On the subject of quotas, though - it's not perfect, not at all. However, it's something. Quite possibly it's only a matter of making a show on a political level that we actually do give a shit, as even if someone without a given privilege is hired, there's nothing saying they won't be in a tremendously hostile work environment and driven out through bullshit.

In a way this is similar to labor unions. In a well run business they are seldom necessary. In a badly run business not even the best union will be able to do much good. How good is the relationship between Tops and UCFW, for instance? And where's the union at Wegmans?

Not being familiar that intimately with the case in your original post, I wonder if the problem was not just who passed it but that it was discovered based on those results there was some bias involved that led to the results it produced. Was another test done, and did the results change? If so, I would want to look very carefully at what was changed and how it changed the results before making an argument on discrimination one way or the other.

[hkellick]

I keep reading this response, especially the first paragraph.

I find it fascinating how near-total-strangers can speak to the benefits I've personally experienced from White Privilege.

I think if you speak regarding society as a whole, White Privilege is a reality, but as to People in particular, or situations in particular... I can't say I believe it's so cut and dry. Life is far more complicated than that.

It's just like this case. We're making many assumptions regarding it, such as how biased that test was. I don't know the reality of how fair the test was, do you? Can we really speak to whether or not it was right to throw the results of the exam out?

Assumptions only go so far and very rarely work to the Human Experience. For every assumption you have, I'm sure we can find at LEAST one person who breaks it.

[invisionary]

I speak to them without knowing exactly what because part of the point is nobody can know exactly, not even oneself. However, if you look at the differences between races, genders, and classes, it's obvious somebody came out on top of the pecking order, and the concept of privilege makes the most sense at least to me of why.

Nothing is absolute in this world, certainly. However, if we rejected everything that couldn't be absolutely proved, we'd have very little in the way of sure knowledge. Still, you made assumptions based on the experience - if you hadn't you wouldn't have posted. So I'm challenging your assumptions and you're challenging mine. That's how dialogue works.

While certainly very little is absolute, there are things that apply often enough that assumptions can be made based on prior results. Sure they might not work out, but they're good enough to be used as guidelines. Again, as reference to this, the beginning of this comment. Somehow us white males got ahead of everyone else, and the reason that seems most logical to me is privilege.

[hkellick]

As I see it, white males got ahead of everyone simply because 100 year or so ago, others weren't allowed the rights to be educated, to get opportunities. Women were relegated to taking care of the family and we all know how America treated others of different colors.

And then the 60s happened, and civil rights were earned.

And then the 70s happened and there was a backlash. And a backlash against the backlash and a backlash against that backlash and so on and so forth.

And now here we all are in the 00s trying to figure out what our roles are and how we can all have a chance to have what we want.

The backlashes still exist. Some of those that had power don't want to give it up and some people still live in the past regarding where we were instead of being able to see where we are and that, all that, is part of the human existence.

I don't know where we're heading, precisely... hopefully to some better place as a society where a person's color, sexuality, sex, etc... may define who they are but not what they can do and what they can be, but change is slow, especially for a whole society. It's happening, but slowly.

That is how I view the world.

[esteleth]

The thing is, white males climbed to the top of the heap a lot longer than 1900. White males having huge privilege, world-wide, dates back to at least the 1700s. Men running over women is not a few centuries old either, it is millennia old. This is not a temporary problem, it is systemic and very, very old.
Also, I would like to point out that racism did not vanish in the 60's simply because of the civil rights movement. There is still racism today. The same is true with sexism, et cetera.

[hkellick]

Hello there! You're new to this entry!

Yes, Society as we know it has been predicated upon a history where men ruled. I do not argue that.

A little over 100 years ago in America, which is where I'm based, a few women asked the simple question something like "If the declaration of independence states that all people are created equal, how come I'm less equal than he is."

That's where I got the number 100 from.

Racism and Sexism are not dead. Nor is Homophobia, Anti-Semitism and a million other brands of small-mindedness and hate.

They are, however, a great deal less acceptable now. To discount the changes that HAVE occurred is, frankly, to do a disservice to a great many of people of both sexes and many colors who have done their best to change the system, to actually create a society of equal opportunity.

For example, the world didn't suddenly become a perfect place when Obama became president, but Society DID change a little.

[esteleth]

A little over 100 years ago in America, which is where I'm based, a few women asked the simple question something like "If the declaration of independence states that all people are created equal, how come I'm less equal than he is."
Women began questioning institutionalized sexism a lot longer ago than a century ago. Christine de Pizan, for example was writing about sexism in the 1400s. Her perspective, obviously, was different than a modern woman's, but she is usually counted amongst pre-modern feminists.
I do agree that society has come a long way. No doubt. However, to say that we are now a prejudice-free society is absolutely false, as I am sure you agree.
My reason for disagreeing with you here (i.e. on this topic) is that just because (for example) we have a Civil Rights Act that bans preventing black people from voting doesn't mean that there are no voting issues. Far from it, in fact.
You have privilege by virtue of your whiteness and maleness. You have admitted as such. I have privilege by virtue of my whiteness and lack it due to my femaleness. We both have the privilege that comes from being American. And so on, and so on. Having privilege does not make one a bad person. Having unchecked privilege makes one a bit of an ass.
A few decades of life after the civil rights movement has not negated the need for the laws of those times, or things like affirmative action. That will take much longer.

[hkellick]

I stand corrected, regarding feminism. I'm just quoting what I learned back in school.

And I don't have any issue with the law that states "It is illegal to consider race, sex, age, etc. when deciding whom to hire or promote." But, as I've said above, I don't think Quotas are the answer either.

The problem with Quotas is that it DOES end up being unfair to some, for example those firefighters, most of whom probably weren't going out of their way to be racist or anything.

I don't know what a better system would be. I know what I think SHOULD be, but I've no idea that it would work in reality, reality being intrinsically unfair to all.

[zorkian]

The thing that's difficult for me, as a logically minded person, is that it's not really provable at all. I keep thinking of it as: we only see one face of the moon, right? Before we had satellites and spaceships to go behind the moon, we could only speculate what was on the other side.

Privilege feels like that, to me. I can only stand on one side of the coin. There is no possible way I can actually stand on the other side, to see things from the point of view of a woman, person of color, etc. No matter what I do. The best I can hope to achieve is someone telling me what they see, and even then...

Quotas and affirmative action: I used to be entirely against them. Then I started trying to picture it like this: in a perfect world, all people are equal, have equal opportunity, and are never subject to discrimination. In that perfect world, it makes sense that the number of people doing various jobs, working at various companies, etc, would approximate the makeup of the world. I agree with this statement.

Yet, in the world that we have, we end up with a situation that is nowhere - nowhere! - near that arguably perfect world. All I have to do is look around every technology company I've worked at to realize that something is terribly wrong. To me, quotas is a way of saying, "we know that in a perfect world, things would look like X. we know that we do not live in a perfect world. we also know that the problem is too large to be solved with one change, one system, one program. therefore, we will do what we can, where we can, to try to create the world we see as perfect."

Quotas don't fix the problem, no. But they put pressure on various parts of the machine. It's an incentive. If Bill Gates were to create a scholarship program saying that 19 year old people who dropped out of High School, got their GED, and worked at McDonald's for a year got a free ride to WVU, I can promise you that within a year or two, there'd be a bunch of people who fit that exact description at WVU. While that particular example is contrived, in the case of quotas, it's not contrived at all.

Now, my personal jury is still out on whether or not the pressure it puts on the system actually will translate into positive change overall. But there you have it, maybe it makes a little more sense now.

[hkellick]

*nod* I understand. Being white and male has probably helped shaped the experiences that shape my viewpoint. It is often difficult to look past that, and for that, that usually means having a conversation with.. my wife or someone else I'm comfortable talking to with a different viewpoint on life than I.

I think as I read your argument on why Quotas Make Sense.. you're probably pretty close to the truth on why they exist. Because life isn't fair and because that probably is the only LEGAL way to put pressure on those parts of the system that would otherwise continue the racism,.

I'm still not sure that I think they're right, but at the very least, I can understand and respect that argument.

[cesy]

I don't know much about this particular case, but I'd also agree that quotas are very rarely the answer to fix discrimination.

(And I say this knowing that it may well have played a part in me getting into the university I went to.)

Ideally, we'd be able to select the best people for the job, and if those "best people for the job" reflected an institutional bias, you'd fix that at source. But I'm coming at it by analogy from educational selection, where a university should pick the best students, and if that ends up with a biased sample, get better teaching at an earlier stage for the minority students, don't put them onto a course they can't do because they haven't had good enough teaching, however bright they were born.

[adalger]

Yep. You've jump-started my comment for me. :)

Similarly, don't give the job to less qualified people to meet a quota, fix the part of the system that limits production of the most qualified people to those of some specific ethnic / social / gender makeup.

Particularly with firefighters, I absolutely don't want any question that the person in charge of putting out the fire at my house is there because they needed a latino lesbian who grew up poor and not because she was the best person for the job.

[hkellick]

Especially true with a manager.

I think that most people have the capacity to be a fireperson. It takes training, but it's a skill most people could learn.

However, anyone who works will be able to start telling you the difference between a good manager and a bad manager and I don't think someone should become a manager simply because they fit into a minority class.

I'm not saying minorities shouldn't become managers, but that being a minority class is not reason enough, if they're just going to be a bad manager.

[invisionary]

Actually, I don't think so. There is a baseline of physical strength, conditioning, and endurance required to safely and effectively do the job. These are bonafide occupational qualifications, as the legal terminology goes. Not everyone is tough enough to be a firefighter. However, among those that are, I don't care what they look like or who they fuck in their spare time. I care that they'll bail my ass out of a fire if I need it.

Simply being able to say whether or not someone is a good manager (in the speaker's opinion, no less) does not mean they themselves would be a good manager. The big problem with trying to fairly hire managers is that privilege is at work bigtime. People listen to those they perceive are like them, and well, race and gender are obvious.

Nobody in this thread is saying a quota system is perfect, or that it means the absolute best person will be hired 100% of the time. It's a flawed system, but arguably less flawed than the good ol' boy system it's replacing.

[cesy]

Exactly. If a minority group are not getting into certain universities, first check whether it's because those universities are bigots or because that minority tend to have lower academic grades. If the latter, fix that problem, don't just impose a quota so they go to a university where they can't cope with the work. There are several minorities who do tend to have lower grades in public exams, and the problem runs right through the school system, not just at the top level. The root cause needs fixing; don't just paper over the symptoms.

If minorities are missing out on promotions, check if it's because their managers are prejudiced, or if they're missing out on the work experience or training that would help them do their job better so they got higher performance ratings and could get the promotions. Obviously, sometimes it is the former, and that needs challenging and fixing, but sometimes it's the latter. And sometimes, people don't want to admit it's the latter because it's a lot harder to deal with long-term, complex, endemic problems than just blaming the manager for being a bigot.

(As a girl, I was the only person at my school doing the STEP maths exam. At the equivalent boys' school, there were several. I was the first pupil in several years to try for it. They had people most years. They had more formal classes to prepare for it, teachers with more experience of training people for it, and classmates to work with. They all got higher grades than me. Were the exam markers prejudiced against girls? I don't think so. Should they have had a quota of girls to get a certain grade? Definitely not.)

[damned_colonial]

Exactly. If a minority group are not getting into certain universities, first check whether it's because those universities are bigots or because that minority tend to have lower academic grades. If the latter, fix that problem, don't just impose a quota so they go to a university where they can't cope with the work.

And what if the lower grades are because of endemic racism in schools, which is in part because most of the teachers are white, which is because only white people applied for the jobs, because only white people had teaching degrees?

Or what if the lower grades are because the kids don't have as much homework support, because the father's in prison on account of a racist law enforcement and judicial system, and the mother is working a low-wage job as many hours as she can, because she doesn't have a degree...

"Root cause" is over-simplifying, I think. It's all cyclical and intertwined, and you have to break that somehow. Like when I'm untangling a ball of yarn... sometimes you just have to break out the scissors and say "I'd really rather not break the yarn, but sometimes you just have to do it to get it untangled."

[cesy]

Hmm. I see what you mean. So quotas are generally a bad thing, but sometimes useful as a way to break the cycle, even if it means you don't get the best person for the job in the short term. You know, I don't think I'd ever heard it argued that clearly that way before. Thank you. I shall have to go away and think about this.