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.