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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-30 12:54 pm (UTC)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.