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

[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.