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

[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.