![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hkellickLet 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-29 10:40 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-29 11:10 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-29 11:55 pm (UTC)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.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-30 12:23 pm (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-30 01:52 pm (UTC)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....
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-30 01:57 pm (UTC)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.