![[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: 2009-06-30 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.