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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-08-07 11:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-07 08:26 pm (UTC)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.