3 ms·

Given the widespread use of pro-black affirmative-action (practiced by GitHub, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft; nearly every major university; many gover

by said 10y ago

Given the widespread use of pro-black affirmative-action (practiced by GitHub, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft; nearly every major university; many government contractors; and probably the majority of F500 companies), isn't it only logical to view black resumes with more suspicion? Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites. On a side note, affirmative action policies ultimately help middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites. The upper-class whites who push for affirmative action are not affected by it, and neither are their children. Helping middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites is a prime example of virtue signaling gone awry.

cgy1 10y ago
Affirmative action, as commonly practiced for university admissions, don't hurt whites at all. They primarily hurt Asian-American applicants.
laughinghan 10y ago
> Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites. The scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that black people need to display higher competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites, which is precisely why affirmative action is hoped to be valuable. See "Social Justice for the Highly-Demanding of Rigor" for a meta-analysis of over a dozen separate scientific studies: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/20/social-justice-for-the-highly-demanding-of-rigor/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/20/social-justice-for-the-...
- said 10y ago
  That article does not refute what I'm saying. By the 1990s, affirmative action was already in full swing. Universities and large companies were already on board, as was the federal government and many state and local governments. Additionally, by the 1990s, the national media had been very sympathetic to affirmative action policies for at least 20 years—you would have been hard-pressed to find a single American who didn't know those policies existed. So it was already perfectly reasonable (and expected) for a profit-seeking non-racist [1] to view black resumes with more suspicion. [1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes. Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering (by someone who has access): 1. To which employers did the subjects apply? 2. How were those employers selected? 3. Did any of those employers have pro-black affirmative action policies? 4. If the studies did include employers with pro-black affirmative action policies, how heavily were those employers represented in terms of applications? This is important: even if only 2% of employers have pro-black affirmative action policies (a number far too low), those employers might employ (directly or indirectly) 60% of Americans.
  - laughinghan 10y ago
    It's a direct counterargument to what you're saying. You're saying that due to 20 years of affirmative action policies where a black person who is less competent than a white person is able to put an identical item on their resume, it's reasonable to expect that a black person with an identical resume as a white person is less competent. Is that a mischaracterization? I said that the scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that a black person has to be more competent to be able to put an identical item on their resume. Therefore affirmative action when considering resumes is reasonable. > ... non-racist [1] ... [1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes. This is generally taken to mean that black people are just as racist as white people, just like women can be just as sexist as men. I'm not sure why you're concluding that non-racists can be racially biased (which seems to me like a contradiction in terms). > Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering What answers to those questions would change your mind, and what answers do you believe should change my mind?
balls187 10y ago
> On a side note, affirmative action policies ultimately help middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites. The upper-class whites who push for affirmative action are not affected by it, and neither are their children. Data to back that up? > isn't it only logical to view black resumes with more suspicion? Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites. No, that's against the law (in the US).

by said 10y ago

cgy1 10y ago

Affirmative action, as commonly practiced for university admissions, don't hurt whites at all. They primarily hurt Asian-American applicants.

laughinghan 10y ago

> Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites. The scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that black people need to display higher competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites, which is precisely why affirmative action is hoped to be valuable. See "Social Justice for the Highly-Demanding of Rigor" for a meta-analysis of over a dozen separate scientific studies: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/20/social-justice-for-the-highly-demanding-of-rigor/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/20/social-justice-for-the-...

said 10y ago
That article does not refute what I'm saying. By the 1990s, affirmative action was already in full swing. Universities and large companies were already on board, as was the federal government and many state and local governments. Additionally, by the 1990s, the national media had been very sympathetic to affirmative action policies for at least 20 years—you would have been hard-pressed to find a single American who didn't know those policies existed. So it was already perfectly reasonable (and expected) for a profit-seeking non-racist [1] to view black resumes with more suspicion. [1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes. Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering (by someone who has access): 1. To which employers did the subjects apply? 2. How were those employers selected? 3. Did any of those employers have pro-black affirmative action policies? 4. If the studies did include employers with pro-black affirmative action policies, how heavily were those employers represented in terms of applications? This is important: even if only 2% of employers have pro-black affirmative action policies (a number far too low), those employers might employ (directly or indirectly) 60% of Americans.
- laughinghan 10y ago
  It's a direct counterargument to what you're saying. You're saying that due to 20 years of affirmative action policies where a black person who is less competent than a white person is able to put an identical item on their resume, it's reasonable to expect that a black person with an identical resume as a white person is less competent. Is that a mischaracterization? I said that the scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that a black person has to be more competent to be able to put an identical item on their resume. Therefore affirmative action when considering resumes is reasonable. > ... non-racist [1] ... [1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes. This is generally taken to mean that black people are just as racist as white people, just like women can be just as sexist as men. I'm not sure why you're concluding that non-racists can be racially biased (which seems to me like a contradiction in terms). > Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering What answers to those questions would change your mind, and what answers do you believe should change my mind?

balls187 10y ago

> On a side note, affirmative action policies ultimately help middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites. The upper-class whites who push for affirmative action are not affected by it, and neither are their children. Data to back that up? > isn't it only logical to view black resumes with more suspicion? Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites. No, that's against the law (in the US).