Ask HN: How do you feel about affirmative action and reverse discrimination?
3 comments
In order for there to be 'reverse' discrimination you would have to achieve complete parity across every possible subsection of society and then consciously discriminate against those who used to be in the minority. Affirmative action's purpose it to reverse discrimination, it unfortunately can't do too much about bias which is rampant in hiring decisions far and wide.
I'm a Canadian living in the US and I find it fascinating that a lot of people (esp. in software) are so very concerned that hiring be based on merit. That perspective completely leaves out an analysis that merit is something you can often only build on top of privilege. There's a great cartoon that I cannot find but which sums it up nicely. A white boy and a black boy come upon a high ledge and want to explore what's up there. So the white boy gets the black boy to give him a boost and climbs on top of him to reach the ledge. Then when the black boy reaches his hand up to ask for a lift getting up there himself the white boy says "You have to get up here on your own, I did".
It's too easy to say we make decisions "blind" or based on "merit" and that therefore removes the need for a deeper analysis of race, class and gender in our society. When we make decisions blind we might assume the pool being drawn from is fair to begin with and that those with merit naturally bubble up to the top but to really have a fair why not actually invite, engage, and draw in more people with a wider diversity so that you then know you will choose on real merit and not merit in a silo of white (and often male) privilege?
I'm a Canadian living in the US and I find it fascinating that a lot of people (esp. in software) are so very concerned that hiring be based on merit. That perspective completely leaves out an analysis that merit is something you can often only build on top of privilege. There's a great cartoon that I cannot find but which sums it up nicely. A white boy and a black boy come upon a high ledge and want to explore what's up there. So the white boy gets the black boy to give him a boost and climbs on top of him to reach the ledge. Then when the black boy reaches his hand up to ask for a lift getting up there himself the white boy says "You have to get up here on your own, I did".
It's too easy to say we make decisions "blind" or based on "merit" and that therefore removes the need for a deeper analysis of race, class and gender in our society. When we make decisions blind we might assume the pool being drawn from is fair to begin with and that those with merit naturally bubble up to the top but to really have a fair why not actually invite, engage, and draw in more people with a wider diversity so that you then know you will choose on real merit and not merit in a silo of white (and often male) privilege?
In capitalism the only way to go is to hire based on merit. You have to ignore the issue of privelage; that's a separate social problem.
Otherwise, things stop making sense: should we be forced by law to hire unqualified employees just because there's uneducated people that want jobs?
Otherwise, things stop making sense: should we be forced by law to hire unqualified employees just because there's uneducated people that want jobs?
>the act of making decisions based on race, gender, sexual orientation, background or something else
(this reply is US-centric, from what I've heard, apparently AA is implemented differently in other countries)
In terms of employment, the above quote is incorrect. It is illegal to hire someone based on race. AA policies are designed to make sure that an employer is not discriminating against a protected class, but hiring decisions are supposed to based on merit.
In terms of college admissions things are different. Admissions typically are not based solely on academic merit (with the exception of Cal Tech I suppose), but based on a bunch of other factors that align with the college's mission. In this context the USSC has said that race can be one of these factors, and frankly I don't have a problem with it (then again, I am black so take that for what you will).
>This is known as reverse discrimination.
Even when the AA policy is designed to attract white males (nursing programs, HBCU admissions)?
(this reply is US-centric, from what I've heard, apparently AA is implemented differently in other countries)
In terms of employment, the above quote is incorrect. It is illegal to hire someone based on race. AA policies are designed to make sure that an employer is not discriminating against a protected class, but hiring decisions are supposed to based on merit.
In terms of college admissions things are different. Admissions typically are not based solely on academic merit (with the exception of Cal Tech I suppose), but based on a bunch of other factors that align with the college's mission. In this context the USSC has said that race can be one of these factors, and frankly I don't have a problem with it (then again, I am black so take that for what you will).
>This is known as reverse discrimination.
Even when the AA policy is designed to attract white males (nursing programs, HBCU admissions)?
Affirmative action is enforced by bureaucratic procedures in the private and -- mostly -- the public sector. Such procedures can be notoriously difficult to undo, especially if someone benefits from them disproportionately. The purpose of these procedures is to "level the playing field" for different demographic groups. Once this happens (and how would we know if it does?) then we would face a serious problem.
Since bureaucratic procedures are difficult to undo even in the best of circumstances, then inertia will cause affirmative action to remain in effect for some time after it has served its ostensible purpose. Again, inertia alone will bring about this outcome. The lobbying of those who directly benefit will add to that inertia.
Outcome: The former in group becomes the out group.
Since bureaucratic procedures are difficult to undo even in the best of circumstances, then inertia will cause affirmative action to remain in effect for some time after it has served its ostensible purpose. Again, inertia alone will bring about this outcome. The lobbying of those who directly benefit will add to that inertia.
Outcome: The former in group becomes the out group.
What do you all think?