"THIS is news?!! Sweet Jesus on a motorbike!...you might as will run a Google story or a "bring back Enterprise" story."
I submitted two now-rejected stories on yesterday's "Land of the Lost" revival. If minor details about Dr Who make it, why not this one? Hope somebody gets this as a news item (I don't really care that it won't be me).
"a candidate for a position in robotics who was under the illusion that you could bring an out-of-balance system into balance by applying a neutral force"
You are thinking like a robot. In human costs, what you are asking for is to discriminate against some innocent individuals because other innocent individuals are being discriminated against. This does not bring balance: it tips things even farther along the "injustice" scale by adding even more discriminated-against individuals.
"Before you implement this, you should make sure that the conditions of your society ensure equal opportunity for people of all races. Until that is true, "Choose the best regardless of race." is just a veiled excuse for practising racism."
The opposite is true. If you are treating someone fairly regardless of race, you are not practicing racism whatsoever. If we do as you want, and punish someone for their skin color because of unrelated individuals in "society", we are practicing racism. Besides, society is based in the actions of individuals. How can society "ensure equal opportunity for people of all races" unless it is done at the hiring level?
"Complaining about it seems rather petty to me. And anyway, as a white male, I've never noticed reverse discrimination having any meaningful impact on my ability to find work"
All this means is that the quota policies are not being really implemented in the places where you worked. If they were, you would have known it.
"I quite suspect it is an illusion in the minds of those..."
It is not an "illusion": it all comes from reading the actual policies, and finding out about places where they actually are implemented: discrimination happens here. No surprise: the policies are trying to do that.
Return of classic scifi: Land of the Lost
on
Daleks Return to Dr Who
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
With a Land of the Lost movie in the works, this new Dr Who, and the success of "Battlestar Galactica", it seems that these are good times for the return of classic scifi. Except for "Star Trek", which hardly went away, and managed to wear itself out.
"Your sex acts should happen outside office for most jobs, but people commonly express love and sexuality in everyday life and it's stupid to expect them to stop while at work"
Bill! Is that you? Still sore about getting all that flack for sexually harassing your employees when you were Governor and President?
I wish you all your success in your effort to offer corporations tax breaks for providing waterbeds in a mirror-ceilinged room adjacent to the corporate suite.
' How many of the CEOs of the top 500 companies in the US are not white males? '
So? Find out why this is the case. Does it prove discrimination? It might in some cases. There is likely a lot of discrimination involved that was not done by the company on the list: young blacks denied the opportunity for good college, so they did not end up qualified for the corporate/CEO track. The answer won't be discrimination in any of the cases where the company is led by the person who started it, or by their heirs.
"And lets get rid of notion of the "best" person deserving the job"
No. Let's make this notion even stronger.
"There are lots of reason to hire someone that is not "the best" candidate"
Yeah. Like lots of bad reasons: boss's son, good haircut, has the right skin color.
"The hiring process is far more complicated then some simple skin color checklist."
As long as there is no skin color checklist at all. This is a good start.
No, let's make sure this is the only notion.
A false claim: only you can put words in your mouth.
"There's a difference between assigning individuals rights (afforded in the Constitution) and assigning imaginary entities rights (never granted by the Constitution). Don't confuse the two"
I'm not. I'm just recognizing that an "imaginary person" can't do anything: they are imaginary. Anything a "corporation" does is really the action of an individual or individuals. Like or not, these individuals still have the rights "accorded in the Constitution". The problem is not "confusing the two". There is really only the one, not two: the rights of the individuals, which don't vanish just because they are in a corporation, or are saying something that the corporation wants them to say.
"Shouldn't it just be illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring practices unless it's some criterion relevant to job performance?"
Anywhere where there is a union and "closed shop", you can be fired for not "volunteering" to give your money to political candidates (or for not joining the union) Another situation that has nothing to do with job performance issues.
"This bill would make it illegal to discriminate against gays because they are gay, similar to how it is illegal to discriminate against women and minorities for that fact"
Is this exactly true? The omission implies that it is legal and OK to discriminate against those who are not women or minorities.
"Using race as a proxy for diversity in viewpoints has pretty high correlation"
It appears that you and others are looking for some sort of justification to keep racism in hiring policies, instead of reducing it altogether.
"Not being white means you deal with small slights every day, such as being seated by the kitchen in restaurants regularly"
Why bring this up at all unless you are bringing into this the blatantly racist argument that "because some whites are bad, we must punish others who have the same skin color?"
"I defy anyone to show me where the constitution gives any rights to corporations"
Check the Bill of Rights. Corporations are made up of individuals, each one of which retains these rights. Corporations cannot do a thing without these individuals acting.
"Then why do they have many of the same rights in the eyes of the law, with none of the responsibilities?"
Yet, they can't vote either. So much of the "protection" from personhood is as a shield from frivolous lawsuits. This is a major reason why so many small businesses decide to incorporate. Perhaps, get rid of the frivolous lawsuit problem?
I don't mind the end to the fillibuster one bit. It is an aberration and abuse of Congressional parliamentary procedure. Regardless if which party is "on the outs". I grew to dislike it during the pre-Reagan days of Democrat majorities.
"It's interesting that you bring up "only whites can deal with whites"...because it's true and you know it"
I don't think this is true. Why do you?
" some midwestern-bred marketer tried to sell huge Cadillacs in space-tight Japan. This is exactly why a diverse pool of experience and knowledge is needed"
You don't need racist hiring policies to do this. Anyone can do 5 minutes of research and find out that giant Cadillacs are not popular in Japan. Not only that, anyone of any race can do a market survey of Japanese car buyers.
"Check out the new "bigass" trucks from Toyota and Nissan, who are steadily chewing up marketshare from the Big Three. What did these Japanese companies do? They hired cowboys out of the Texas Panhandle to do consumer taste research for them."
A quick market survey would have done the same thing.
"Curiously, before anti-discrimination laws, many companies insisted that they did hire "only the best" and strangely they were nearly entirely all white male employees"
Obviously, they weren't, and if there is discrimination, it can be proven.
"And "only the best" assumes that all the person's skills can be assessed in an interview "
You appear to be criticizing this for being superficial, yet you want skin color to be the overriding factor!
"Diversity is not some quota system"
If you really want to ensure a certain sort of rainbow makeup, you have to have a quota.
"It is a policy that makes sure everyone has a chance"
Not if skin color or other superficial factors come into play. Then you lose your chance if you are the wrong skin color.
"There is much more to getting a job done then being the most techinically proficient or knowing the most."
"Having the right skin color" then? That is what is most important?
"the constant background insinuation that I was only hired to fill their quota of disabled persons"
That is another problem when there are explicit policies to hire people for nonsensical criteria (skin color, etc). A pall ends up hanging over everyone of that race, with people thinking "he/she is one of those who is not really qualified" whether or not he/she really is qualified, or is one of those "tokens" hired only to fill a diversity rainbow.
"That sounds good, but unfortunately it is not accurate in my experience...."
Actually, I am not one of those who thinks that "hiring the best" only means "white males". If you hire the best, you will still achieve diversity along the way, but not at the expense of excellence.
"I agree that the best person should be hired, but at the same time I very much doubt that the best person will always have the same skin color as everyone else on the team"
Absolutely.
"And if the team does all have the same skin color- then the best person for the job is someone different so they can bring new ideas and a different veiwpoint."
Absolutely not. Skin color is superficial and means nothing. If you are looking for diversity of background and viewpoint, why not look specifically for diversity of background and viewpoint?
"The grandparent is talking about two near equal applicants and choosing the one that brings greater diversity to the company"
If they are "near equal", choose the one that is a little better. If they are perfectly equal, flip a coin. Leave racial discrimination out of the decision process entirely.
"You could have one persone that had a typical middle class suburban upbringing and the other is from an urban environment. Presuming that the whole company is predominantly one, hiring the other type will bring in new view points."
That is only if you are playing on gross, broad stereotypes: where everyone within those two groups is all the same. You entirely ignore the fact of diversity within those groups.
"No. Each person in that organization has one vote when election time rolls around. Using a corporation to double your leverage (or have your point of view re-represented after you've had your say) is just flat out wrong."
What you are saying is that if a person is in both the Sierra Club and the ACLU, the Sierra Club can speak out on issues, but the second organization (the ACLU) cannot, because the Sierra Club already did.
"Every Microsoft shareholder is not going to agree with supporting a pro-gay bill like this"
Then the shareholders deal with it through the usual means of controlling the direction of the corporation. It's all taken care of: provided enough of them are antigay.
"in the prospectus issued by Microsoft to potential shareholders, I see nothing about the company being on a mission to support pro-gay legislation"
You don't see every single little activity shown on the prospectus.
"Since supporting pro-gay legislation is an expense that does not lead to increased profits, shareholders could probably say they have been duped"
"Wrong. They would have no cultural experience to draw upon when dealing with customers"
Wrong. This holds to the idea that "only whites can deal with whites", "only Asians with Asians", etc. A sort of apartheid when dealing with customers! You are also dealing with just the small part of the staff that works with the public....
"The best person does not always have to be hired in every case"
The best person must be hired, period.
"especially when the wider company or society would suffer because of it"
Certainly the wider company suffers because, by putting real qualifications on the back burner, you have increased incompetance. A lot of problems: the bottom line suffers, and you have a lot of resentment of incompetants who were hired for their skin color. Society suffers too.
"Nowadays people are smart enough to look at the "big picture"."
Not if the "big picture" involves discriminating against applicants just for their skin color.
"Even Hitler came to power using dubious but legal means"
Tell me, if someone mentions Hitler in a forest, but no-one hears it, does it violate Godwin's Law?
I prefer "Rube Godwin's Law": anytime someone comes up with an outlandish contraption, someone asks "But can you go back in time and kill Hitler with it?".
Whether or not they do should be up to those involved, and those alone. A corporation is just an organization of persons, and shouldn't persons be able to choose what issues they get involved with?
Slashdot Mirror
I submitted two now-rejected stories on yesterday's "Land of the Lost" revival. If minor details about Dr Who make it, why not this one? Hope somebody gets this as a news item (I don't really care that it won't be me).
You are thinking like a robot. In human costs, what you are asking for is to discriminate against some innocent individuals because other innocent individuals are being discriminated against. This does not bring balance: it tips things even farther along the "injustice" scale by adding even more discriminated-against individuals.
The opposite is true. If you are treating someone fairly regardless of race, you are not practicing racism whatsoever. If we do as you want, and punish someone for their skin color because of unrelated individuals in "society", we are practicing racism. Besides, society is based in the actions of individuals. How can society "ensure equal opportunity for people of all races" unless it is done at the hiring level?
"Complaining about it seems rather petty to me. And anyway, as a white male, I've never noticed reverse discrimination having any meaningful impact on my ability to find work"
All this means is that the quota policies are not being really implemented in the places where you worked. If they were, you would have known it.
"I quite suspect it is an illusion in the minds of those..."
It is not an "illusion": it all comes from reading the actual policies, and finding out about places where they actually are implemented: discrimination happens here. No surprise: the policies are trying to do that.
With a Land of the Lost movie in the works, this new Dr Who, and the success of "Battlestar Galactica", it seems that these are good times for the return of classic scifi. Except for "Star Trek", which hardly went away, and managed to wear itself out.
Bill! Is that you? Still sore about getting all that flack for sexually harassing your employees when you were Governor and President?
I wish you all your success in your effort to offer corporations tax breaks for providing waterbeds in a mirror-ceilinged room adjacent to the corporate suite.
So? Find out why this is the case. Does it prove discrimination? It might in some cases. There is likely a lot of discrimination involved that was not done by the company on the list: young blacks denied the opportunity for good college, so they did not end up qualified for the corporate/CEO track. The answer won't be discrimination in any of the cases where the company is led by the person who started it, or by their heirs.
"And lets get rid of notion of the "best" person deserving the job"
No. Let's make this notion even stronger.
"There are lots of reason to hire someone that is not "the best" candidate"
Yeah. Like lots of bad reasons: boss's son, good haircut, has the right skin color.
"The hiring process is far more complicated then some simple skin color checklist."
As long as there is no skin color checklist at all. This is a good start.
No, let's make sure this is the only notion. A false claim: only you can put words in your mouth.
I'm not. I'm just recognizing that an "imaginary person" can't do anything: they are imaginary. Anything a "corporation" does is really the action of an individual or individuals. Like or not, these individuals still have the rights "accorded in the Constitution". The problem is not "confusing the two". There is really only the one, not two: the rights of the individuals, which don't vanish just because they are in a corporation, or are saying something that the corporation wants them to say.
"Shouldn't it just be illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring practices unless it's some criterion relevant to job performance?" Anywhere where there is a union and "closed shop", you can be fired for not "volunteering" to give your money to political candidates (or for not joining the union) Another situation that has nothing to do with job performance issues.
Is this exactly true? The omission implies that it is legal and OK to discriminate against those who are not women or minorities.
It appears that you and others are looking for some sort of justification to keep racism in hiring policies, instead of reducing it altogether.
"Not being white means you deal with small slights every day, such as being seated by the kitchen in restaurants regularly"
Why bring this up at all unless you are bringing into this the blatantly racist argument that "because some whites are bad, we must punish others who have the same skin color?"
Check the Bill of Rights. Corporations are made up of individuals, each one of which retains these rights. Corporations cannot do a thing without these individuals acting.
Yet, they can't vote either. So much of the "protection" from personhood is as a shield from frivolous lawsuits. This is a major reason why so many small businesses decide to incorporate. Perhaps, get rid of the frivolous lawsuit problem?
I don't mind the end to the fillibuster one bit. It is an aberration and abuse of Congressional parliamentary procedure. Regardless if which party is "on the outs". I grew to dislike it during the pre-Reagan days of Democrat majorities.
" some midwestern-bred marketer tried to sell huge Cadillacs in space-tight Japan. This is exactly why a diverse pool of experience and knowledge is needed"
You don't need racist hiring policies to do this. Anyone can do 5 minutes of research and find out that giant Cadillacs are not popular in Japan. Not only that, anyone of any race can do a market survey of Japanese car buyers.
"Check out the new "bigass" trucks from Toyota and Nissan, who are steadily chewing up marketshare from the Big Three. What did these Japanese companies do? They hired cowboys out of the Texas Panhandle to do consumer taste research for them."
A quick market survey would have done the same thing.
Obviously, they weren't, and if there is discrimination, it can be proven.
"And "only the best" assumes that all the person's skills can be assessed in an interview "
You appear to be criticizing this for being superficial, yet you want skin color to be the overriding factor!
"Diversity is not some quota system"
If you really want to ensure a certain sort of rainbow makeup, you have to have a quota.
"It is a policy that makes sure everyone has a chance"
Not if skin color or other superficial factors come into play. Then you lose your chance if you are the wrong skin color.
"There is much more to getting a job done then being the most techinically proficient or knowing the most."
"Having the right skin color" then? That is what is most important?
That is another problem when there are explicit policies to hire people for nonsensical criteria (skin color, etc). A pall ends up hanging over everyone of that race, with people thinking "he/she is one of those who is not really qualified" whether or not he/she really is qualified, or is one of those "tokens" hired only to fill a diversity rainbow.
If you hire only on excellence, this vanishes.
Actually, I am not one of those who thinks that "hiring the best" only means "white males". If you hire the best, you will still achieve diversity along the way, but not at the expense of excellence.
"I agree that the best person should be hired, but at the same time I very much doubt that the best person will always have the same skin color as everyone else on the team"
Absolutely.
"And if the team does all have the same skin color- then the best person for the job is someone different so they can bring new ideas and a different veiwpoint."
Absolutely not. Skin color is superficial and means nothing. If you are looking for diversity of background and viewpoint, why not look specifically for diversity of background and viewpoint?
If they are "near equal", choose the one that is a little better. If they are perfectly equal, flip a coin. Leave racial discrimination out of the decision process entirely.
"You could have one persone that had a typical middle class suburban upbringing and the other is from an urban environment. Presuming that the whole company is predominantly one, hiring the other type will bring in new view points."
That is only if you are playing on gross, broad stereotypes: where everyone within those two groups is all the same. You entirely ignore the fact of diversity within those groups.
What you are saying is that if a person is in both the Sierra Club and the ACLU, the Sierra Club can speak out on issues, but the second organization (the ACLU) cannot, because the Sierra Club already did.
Makes sense? Not at all.
Then the shareholders deal with it through the usual means of controlling the direction of the corporation. It's all taken care of: provided enough of them are antigay.
"in the prospectus issued by Microsoft to potential shareholders, I see nothing about the company being on a mission to support pro-gay legislation"
You don't see every single little activity shown on the prospectus.
"Since supporting pro-gay legislation is an expense that does not lead to increased profits, shareholders could probably say they have been duped"
And then they can take action.
Wrong. This holds to the idea that "only whites can deal with whites", "only Asians with Asians", etc. A sort of apartheid when dealing with customers! You are also dealing with just the small part of the staff that works with the public....
"The best person does not always have to be hired in every case"
The best person must be hired, period.
"especially when the wider company or society would suffer because of it"
Certainly the wider company suffers because, by putting real qualifications on the back burner, you have increased incompetance. A lot of problems: the bottom line suffers, and you have a lot of resentment of incompetants who were hired for their skin color. Society suffers too.
"Nowadays people are smart enough to look at the "big picture"."
Not if the "big picture" involves discriminating against applicants just for their skin color.
Don't forget the AARP, the NRA, and other huge large "special interest" groups. But what do I know. I'm a Political Troll (tm)!
I wonder if the Linux version of this is "Caldera red hats Minorities!" I've also heard rumors that Apple shoes minorities. Just don't tell Steve.
I prefer "Rube Godwin's Law": anytime someone comes up with an outlandish contraption, someone asks "But can you go back in time and kill Hitler with it?".
Whether or not they do should be up to those involved, and those alone. A corporation is just an organization of persons, and shouldn't persons be able to choose what issues they get involved with?