"When I knock on a door and say white children deserve the same rights as everybody else, the enthusiastic response is truly amazing," he said.
--->
Today, I received a letter in the mail from a company with which I had recently applied. It was an affirmative action statement, along with applicable survey -- in so many words, it said that unless I was of a minority descent, I would not be considered for the position.
Yes, that form is discriminatory. It's also illegal.
Unless they impinge on the ability of the applicant to perform the job, no company in the United States is legally allowed to use race, gender, age, or physical disability to "screen" applicants. This works both ways: whether you're black & they promptly eliminate you because of it or you're white & they promptly eliminate you because of it, either way it's an illegal form of discrimination.
If it's got your back up far enough, I'd take that form with you to a law firm.
Actually, I believe that the quote you pulled is more a reflection on the widening rich-poor gap in the US. Everyone on the poor end of the scale has a much harder path and generally fewer opportunities. And each group of people on the poor end of the scale feels that it has it worst. However, the vast majority of people on the rich end of the scale are caucasian. The resentment that the poorer people feel toward the rich also gets attached to the secondary but more visible characteristic of "whiteness", and this resentment becomes directed at anyone white, instead of just the rich. So poor white people feel doubly threatened, not only by rich people, but also by poor everyone else. Whether or not this leads to poor white people facing more (indirect or "reverse") discrimination, they feel that it does. And good fearmongers everywhere and of everytime know how to sense, latch onto, and exploit the fears of "neglected" groups.
The company I referred to wasn't doing anything illegal. They receive funding from the US government based on the numbers of minorities which work for them, as many other companies do since AA was instated. Thus they can still be completely within their leagl rights in sending out a vlountary AA form that has a disclaimer on it; yet if it truly holds no basis and they are merely "collecting information that is sent to the government" then why, I wonder, must it be necessary to fill out PRIOR to an interview or the obtainment of a job position. There isn't any reason, in my estimation, that warrants such a thing other than the possibility that is two candidates of equal experience and bearing apply, and one is white and one is minority, and the company knows it will receive money from the government for each person of minority it employs, up to a certain number, they would then hire the minority candidate. That is why I don't like AA. It is not equal opportunity. It's equal opportunity plus a little more.
I agree that receiving the form BEFORE you're hired is suspicious. I also agree that hiring should be colorblind. Unfortunately, too many people have racism and sexism so deeply ingrained that they're unaware that their actions are influced by them. I seem to recall a psychological study where a set of 4 resumes were shown to groups of prospective employers. The control group received no information about the applicants race or gender, and each of the other groups received different information about the race/gender of each applicant. It was found that generally "male" applicants were favored over "female" applicants, regardless of race, and "white" applicants were favored over "minority" applicants if the genders of the applicants were the same. The interesting thing is that none of the experimental subjects reported being aware of their biases. This isn't the same thing as actually being unaware, but I still find it interesting and vaguely depressing.
So yes, AA is intended to provide parity, but the way it's currently structured is incorrect. Unfortunately, there are too many people too invested in the current program for it to be easily changed.
I still think that colorblind hiring is the best way to go.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
--->
Today, I received a letter in the mail from a company with which I had recently applied. It was an affirmative action statement, along with applicable survey -- in so many words, it said that unless I was of a minority descent, I would not be considered for the position.
Now tell me what's discrimination?
no subject
Unless they impinge on the ability of the applicant to perform the job, no company in the United States is legally allowed to use race, gender, age, or physical disability to "screen" applicants. This works both ways: whether you're black & they promptly eliminate you because of it or you're white & they promptly eliminate you because of it, either way it's an illegal form of discrimination.
If it's got your back up far enough, I'd take that form with you to a law firm.
Actually, I believe that the quote you pulled is more a reflection on the widening rich-poor gap in the US. Everyone on the poor end of the scale has a much harder path and generally fewer opportunities. And each group of people on the poor end of the scale feels that it has it worst. However, the vast majority of people on the rich end of the scale are caucasian. The resentment that the poorer people feel toward the rich also gets attached to the secondary but more visible characteristic of "whiteness", and this resentment becomes directed at anyone white, instead of just the rich. So poor white people feel doubly threatened, not only by rich people, but also by poor everyone else. Whether or not this leads to poor white people facing more (indirect or "reverse") discrimination, they feel that it does. And good fearmongers everywhere and of everytime know how to sense, latch onto, and exploit the fears of "neglected" groups.
no subject
no subject
The indirect quota... oh how you annoy me...
I agree that receiving the form BEFORE you're hired is suspicious. I also agree that hiring should be colorblind. Unfortunately, too many people have racism and sexism so deeply ingrained that they're unaware that their actions are influced by them. I seem to recall a psychological study where a set of 4 resumes were shown to groups of prospective employers. The control group received no information about the applicants race or gender, and each of the other groups received different information about the race/gender of each applicant. It was found that generally "male" applicants were favored over "female" applicants, regardless of race, and "white" applicants were favored over "minority" applicants if the genders of the applicants were the same. The interesting thing is that none of the experimental subjects reported being aware of their biases. This isn't the same thing as actually being unaware, but I still find it interesting and vaguely depressing.
So yes, AA is intended to provide parity, but the way it's currently structured is incorrect. Unfortunately, there are too many people too invested in the current program for it to be easily changed.
I still think that colorblind hiring is the best way to go.