6 ms·

I agree with your perspective that it's largely a problem of social bubbles. However, I think that forcing inclusions of people outside of the usual bubble wil

I agree with your perspective that it's largely a problem of social bubbles. However, I think that forcing inclusions of people outside of the usual bubble will expand the bubble over time. That's the goal of this kind of legislation, I think. It will also potentially have side effects like under qualified people being chosen for jobs because of the color of their skin or their gender. Some people see this as an unacceptable assault on the idea of a meritocracy, while others see it as a reasonable price to pay to push society away from sexism and racism by expanding the bubbles.

kjeetgill 8y ago
> Some people see this as an unacceptable assault on the idea of a meritocracy, while others see it as a reasonable price to pay to push society away from sexism and racism by expanding the bubbles. Incredibly well put. I wish more conversations around affirmative action were framed with this in mind. Trying to argue around this is disingenuous from both sides. I think the worst part about arguing the angle of meritocracy is that there is always chance and bias from subtle unknowable sources in any attempt at meritocracy. These policies don't perturb the quality of your ideal that much, you're just more aware of the defect.
- aeternus 8y ago
  There is always a chance of bias, but mandates like this can serve to strengthen and reinforce that bias, which could be a significant step backwards. The credentials of any woman serving on a company board will be questioned, and for many people the assumption will be that they are less qualified than the men on the board.
tropo 8y ago
It's also the fact that you can't get rid of sexism and racism by legislating a requirement for... sexism and racism! You can't get away from being sexist and racist by adding more sexism and racism. On top of that: you keep everybody in a sex/race mindset, you create jealousy, you give the unfavored groups an actual reason to boil with fury (not helping relations here...), and you give everybody a reason to doubt the accomplishments of the favored groups. This is toxic.
- scarface74 8y ago
  I have mixed feelings. I am against outright quotas for the reasons you state, but I’m all for expanding the search for qualified people and deemphasizing internal referrals. I got my start because there was one company that specifically targeted internships from HBCUs. You don’t have to be Black to go to an HBCU, but few White people choose to go there[1]. Is that any less fair than companies that don’t look past a few elite schools? When I got my first job as a team lead and was in a position to hire people on contract, my manager told me, that the company needed “another me”. I told my manager that I had a former coworker who was looking for a job and I trusted him completely. My manager was willing to hire him sight unseen and pay him more than the other contractors just based on my recommendation. I would much rather hire someone I knew. This feedback keeps the outsiders on the outside, but from my own self interest, why wouldn’t I hire someone I knew and trusted? [1] I remember talking to a White friend of mine who told me that he was going to a (worse) college out of the city because there were “no four year schools in the city”. He acted like the HBCU didn’t even exist.
- wilsonnb3 8y ago
  > You can't get away from being sexist and racist by adding more sexism and racism. It's quite literally fighting racism and sexism with racism and sexism. The mindset of people who support these types of policies is that all types of racism and sexism are not equal. They believe racism and sexism can be used as a positive tool when it helps a minority and isn't permanent. It's very important that these policies be temporary even if temporary means for decades. Otherwise we are just institutionalizing racism and sexism which I agree is toxic. However, they can be useful in nudging society away from racism and sexism overall even if it's increased while the policy is in effect.

kjeetgill 8y ago

> Some people see this as an unacceptable assault on the idea of a meritocracy, while others see it as a reasonable price to pay to push society away from sexism and racism by expanding the bubbles. Incredibly well put. I wish more conversations around affirmative action were framed with this in mind. Trying to argue around this is disingenuous from both sides. I think the worst part about arguing the angle of meritocracy is that there is always chance and bias from subtle unknowable sources in any attempt at meritocracy. These policies don't perturb the quality of your ideal that much, you're just more aware of the defect.

aeternus 8y ago
There is always a chance of bias, but mandates like this can serve to strengthen and reinforce that bias, which could be a significant step backwards. The credentials of any woman serving on a company board will be questioned, and for many people the assumption will be that they are less qualified than the men on the board.

tropo 8y ago

It's also the fact that you can't get rid of sexism and racism by legislating a requirement for... sexism and racism! You can't get away from being sexist and racist by adding more sexism and racism. On top of that: you keep everybody in a sex/race mindset, you create jealousy, you give the unfavored groups an actual reason to boil with fury (not helping relations here...), and you give everybody a reason to doubt the accomplishments of the favored groups. This is toxic.

scarface74 8y ago
I have mixed feelings. I am against outright quotas for the reasons you state, but I’m all for expanding the search for qualified people and deemphasizing internal referrals. I got my start because there was one company that specifically targeted internships from HBCUs. You don’t have to be Black to go to an HBCU, but few White people choose to go there[1]. Is that any less fair than companies that don’t look past a few elite schools? When I got my first job as a team lead and was in a position to hire people on contract, my manager told me, that the company needed “another me”. I told my manager that I had a former coworker who was looking for a job and I trusted him completely. My manager was willing to hire him sight unseen and pay him more than the other contractors just based on my recommendation. I would much rather hire someone I knew. This feedback keeps the outsiders on the outside, but from my own self interest, why wouldn’t I hire someone I knew and trusted? [1] I remember talking to a White friend of mine who told me that he was going to a (worse) college out of the city because there were “no four year schools in the city”. He acted like the HBCU didn’t even exist.
wilsonnb3 8y ago
> You can't get away from being sexist and racist by adding more sexism and racism. It's quite literally fighting racism and sexism with racism and sexism. The mindset of people who support these types of policies is that all types of racism and sexism are not equal. They believe racism and sexism can be used as a positive tool when it helps a minority and isn't permanent. It's very important that these policies be temporary even if temporary means for decades. Otherwise we are just institutionalizing racism and sexism which I agree is toxic. However, they can be useful in nudging society away from racism and sexism overall even if it's increased while the policy is in effect.