I have experienced it over and over from both ends. The problem is that it doesn't apply to the situations it should and is used as a club where it is inappropriate.
Stepping back, shouldn't it be someone's right to hire whomever they want? Shouldn't they be allowed to think, feel and say whatever they want? The problem with the racism debate is that presumes to tell people how they should think and that is just as wrong as being a bigoted idiot.
If we are going to talk about, we need to let go of the idea that there is a single way to to view the issue, otherwise it is simply a lecture rather than a conversation.
Re: TiresomesarahmichiganAugust 7 2007, 18:26:42 UTC
This gets back to my point about how to have a discussion about race/racism without shutting people down or pointing fingers, but I am really tempted to unfriend you right now.
I can't believe anyone would come on my journal and say that it should be an employer's right to discriminate in hiring based on race (I realize there's an intellectual dissonance there with my ideas about affirmative action, but I've never been 100 percent comfortable with that being a solution, either).
Ah yes, that is the problem because having a separate point of view makes me part of the bad guys. It took me awhile to realize that drawing distinctions based on color, sexual orientation etc. is wrong regardless of who makes that distinction (the company or the government). We can't solve the problem by switching victims.
We do agree that not hiring someone based on the color of their skin is foolish. Shouldn't people have the right to be foolish with their own property?
I think the victory of civil rights was sweeping away the laws that made these distinctions. I think the failure was placing in new laws that kept the distinctions as the primary differentiating factor.
My gripe is with affirmative action rather than Equal opportunity. There is a huge difference in telling someone they are not allowed to discriminate (not taking a better qualified candidate because of their race) and being forced to take an inferior candidate because of their race.
Re: TiresomesarahmichiganAugust 7 2007, 18:50:04 UTC
In my comment about my boss not wanting to hire black people, I wasn't talking about affirmative action, but rather blatantly violating the EEO law. I think he was foolish and short-sighted in his reasoning. He thought black sales agents wouldn't do well in his markets, but he was discounting black people as a part of his market, which never made sense to me.
Hmmmmm so his choice had a reason rather than just being knee-jerk racism? That's where the conversation gets harder because we are removing his right to run his business to what he sees as his best advantage. Do I agree with him? No, but I do see his logic and while it is discriminatory, I am not as sure that it is racist since he was considering the effect of race rather than dismissing them out of hand as unqualified due to their race.
If someone wants to dig ditches with soup spoons, that's up to him. Deliberately crippling yourself by refusing better tools is short sighted and the markets will respond appropriately. What do we tell people when they are making choices based on their own experience and they are the ones who bear the consequences?
Re: TiresomesarahmichiganAugust 7 2007, 19:02:20 UTC
What I'm trying to say is that he didn't think black sales agents would do well selling in his market, BUT he was also making the assumption that blacks were not part of his target market, which I think *is* racist. There are plenty of affluent African American communities in Michigan, but he never thought to send the black agents there. And his assumptions were racist because he had never hired a black agent, so how the hell would he know they wouldn't do well selling to whites?
Ok. So he was being short-sighted, happens to a lot of businesses, which is why they go under. I think that is an appropriate consequence for bad management.
Re: TiresomesarahmichiganAugust 7 2007, 19:17:28 UTC
My original point for bringing it up wasn't about EEO or Affirmative Action but just to say that racism is alive and well today. Some folks want to believe it's an artifact of the past, but it isn't.
Re: Tiresomestacycat69August 10 2007, 19:09:52 UTC
Okay, Affirmative Action does not say "Hire a black person over a white person, always." Affirmative action basicaly states that your pool of applicants should have a diverse group. Nowhere in any affirmative action law that has stood up before the supreme court (i.e., quotas are illegal) does it state to hire an unqualified person because of their race
( ... )
The problem with the racism debate is that presumes to tell people how they should think
While there are certainly some vocal forces who are trying to force people to change their thoughts, the bulk of what I've seen from anti-racist rhetoric is in getting people to monitor how they speak and act. In my opinion, feel free to think that blacks make better runners, whites were made by God to dominate the globe, or that latinos are lazy and deserve poverty... but be willing to take responsibility for saying any of those things out loud, or acting as if they're true.
Going back to the Don Imus flap, I disagreed with the forces that pressured Imus's company into firing him, but on the same measure, he said things he simply shouldn't have said, and shame on him for having said them.
Re: not disagreeing, just adding...bernmarxAugust 7 2007, 18:48:53 UTC
Agreed. It seems to me that many people (of all races) who try to vilify PC and insist "I can say what I want" don't really want to take responsibility for having said what they wanted. Yes, there are cases where PC has gone overboard and suppressed valid debate, but I don't believe that was the original intent, and there most certainly isn't anything wrong with suggesting that people think and reflect on the possible effect of their words before they open their mouths.
Stepping back, shouldn't it be someone's right to hire whomever they want? Shouldn't they be allowed to think, feel and say whatever they want? The problem with the racism debate is that presumes to tell people how they should think and that is just as wrong as being a bigoted idiot.
If we are going to talk about, we need to let go of the idea that there is a single way to to view the issue, otherwise it is simply a lecture rather than a conversation.
Reply
I can't believe anyone would come on my journal and say that it should be an employer's right to discriminate in hiring based on race (I realize there's an intellectual dissonance there with my ideas about affirmative action, but I've never been 100 percent comfortable with that being a solution, either).
Reply
We do agree that not hiring someone based on the color of their skin is foolish. Shouldn't people have the right to be foolish with their own property?
I think the victory of civil rights was sweeping away the laws that made these distinctions. I think the failure was placing in new laws that kept the distinctions as the primary differentiating factor.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If someone wants to dig ditches with soup spoons, that's up to him. Deliberately crippling yourself by refusing better tools is short sighted and the markets will respond appropriately. What do we tell people when they are making choices based on their own experience and they are the ones who bear the consequences?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
While there are certainly some vocal forces who are trying to force people to change their thoughts, the bulk of what I've seen from anti-racist rhetoric is in getting people to monitor how they speak and act. In my opinion, feel free to think that blacks make better runners, whites were made by God to dominate the globe, or that latinos are lazy and deserve poverty... but be willing to take responsibility for saying any of those things out loud, or acting as if they're true.
Going back to the Don Imus flap, I disagreed with the forces that pressured Imus's company into firing him, but on the same measure, he said things he simply shouldn't have said, and shame on him for having said them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment