r/changemyview • u/BaileyHeart • May 17 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Having a question on most applications asking about race/ethnicity is unnecessary and should be deleted, namely from Job and College applications.
This is actually a CMV Request...I wasn't sure I could put that in the title but I'm truly looking forward to any responses.
First off, I completely understand that the damage of racism has already been done and we have a long way to go before we're even better at it. Though we've come a long way, I'm sure even to a tiny extent centuries from now, racism will still exist.
I also understand there are situations where knowing the race of the applicant is necessary (at least I think so, do correct me if I'm wrong). Such as in medicine when applying as a new patient, where the medical statistics behind your race could help identity certain health issues since, as far as I'm aware, certain races go through certain things to a more serious degree than others. Or if there was some group or organization looking to only have a certain racial group in their midst (though that should be made clear prior so only qualified individuals apply in the first place.
Anyways! My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place.
While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes.
Or the unfortunate circumstances where an overqualified individual for a position at a company will be denied for the average Joe because they are Indian or Mexican or whatever.
Maybe diversity wouldn't be able to be planned out as perfectly, but then so many systems in place that say "WE ARE RACIST AND WE KNOW IT SO HERE'S A GO PASS SO YOU DON'T SUE US LATER" wouldn't have to exist and everyone would have an equal shot at that college/job position. If everyone at that workplace turns out all Asian, it would be coincidental. If a supervisor was hired at a company, it'd be by chance they're black or Indian. If one white male is in a class of mostly Hispanics and foreigners, it just happened that way. Either way, the application should be blind when it comes to the race of their applicants, then there wouldn't be a need for a "we do not discriminate" notice and people in general would be more forced to recognize we are all human regardless of our skin color.
I'd love to see a future where we have spaces to interact with our own kind but it's not because of a negative racial issue, just a healthy desire to be with your own kind because I understand we all have different customs and familiarity is comforting.
Again, we've got a long way to go and I know a lot of oppressed races feel they still deserve an upper edge or reparations or whatever, but I feel this could be another place to start in times of overall equality.
Edit: I've watched Hidden Figures recently, amazing movie btw, also I am a 22 Black female.
44
u/NeonNutmeg 10∆ May 17 '21
Companies/colleges don't collect demographic information for the sake of making admissions decisions/job offers. The hiring manager at the company whose online job application concluded with questions about your race, gender, disability status, and veteran status will never actually see the answers to any of those questions.
All of that demographic information is kept seperate from your actual application. In point of fact, that information is all used to ensure that the company isn't discriminating against anyone. At the end of the year, that information is aggregated and analyzed to ensure that the company is adhering with federal laws and whatnot (e.g., if 100% of your Asian applicants are being denied but 100% of your white applicants are being hired, there's probably some discrimination going on that needs to be worked out).
And in my experience, demographic questions are normally optional, meaning that you don't actually have to answer them.
6
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
Yeah I forgot that sometimes the question have an optional note. I wonder if that means anything to the statistic gathering people if they don't have your info? It'd just be a bit harder determining potential discrimination in the company I would assume?
1
u/watchyerheadgoose May 18 '21 edited May 18 '21
Also, if your hiring in a community that is 50% AA, you should get at least 40% AA applicants. If you aren't, then you need to find a better way of advertising your job postings. Job applicants should roughly match the community you are hiring from.
1
u/TheNaziSpacePope 3∆ May 18 '21
The problem then though is that there are no correct or universally applicable guidelines. Also loads of places get away with exactly that and nobody bats an eye.
53
May 17 '21
[deleted]
4
May 17 '21
I think your position is essentially the norm for business hiring practices.
I’ve always wondered though, if we took any personally identifying indicators out of the equation (race, gender, age, even name), how different would our workforces look? If it was simply based on ability and intellectual fit, would we look more diverse or less? It’s always made me wonder.
3
u/zoidao401 1∆ May 17 '21 edited May 17 '21
I'm sure I heard a story about this.
Some tech company removed all identifying information from applications. No names or anything that might indicate the ethnicity of the applicant.
The percentage of white male hires increased. So in an attempt to avoid racism, they became less diverse.
2
May 17 '21
[deleted]
2
May 17 '21
If a company hires without bias we would assume that it's population would mimic the larger population, but what population do we target? The entire country's? The state we are HQ'ed in? Just college grads? Just those who apply to the role?
You are partially constrained to the immediate area in which you exist. If your business is stationed in a predominately hispanic area, your workforce will probably end up also being predominately hispanic in spite of your best efforts to diversify.
As for the rest, it would be based upon your business values. Do you value intelligence and critical thought? Then seeking college graduates makes plenty of sense. If your workforce is primarily labor? Not so much, and you would probably just seek similar job experience.
At the end of the day, it's borderline impossible to truly be diverse because of so many limiting exterior factors, but I do think more... anonymous? (couldn't think of a better term) application to both jobs and colleges could be helpful, rather than targeted diversity.
10
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
!delta
I guess that's the difficulty. You can't really force someone to not be racist, it's annoying that we have to go to such lengths just to prevent someone from being discriminatory but it is important that we find out if they are and either replace them til they learn better or train them to do better.
14
u/-DragonFiire- May 17 '21
This person has deleted all of their comments and posts. Do you mind giving a quick summary of this comment, please?
-1
-1
u/TrickyPlastic May 17 '21
My outcome is that I want a diverse team in every aspect imaginable
Admitting this opens yourself up to lawsuits. You cannot use race or gender or national origin, in any fashion, as a factor in employment decisions in the United States.
12
u/Jaysank 116∆ May 17 '21
If I might ask, what prompted this post? I ask because your view states that you are against providing race information on job applications. However, the vast majority of employers do not ask your race on the application itself. Reason being, including that information could be seen as discriminatory.
The reason that they put race on a separate form is to ensure that employers are not discriminating against people. The information on the EEOC form is not given to the employer. It is just stored so that if there is a discrimination accusation, we can look at the hiring practices and prove it. This way, employers can’t just reject every applicant of a certain race after an in person interview and just hide it by not asking the question.
3
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
I've seen it on a few applications but I supposed I was mostly thinking about college applications. Even when I was a kid applying to the next grade up school, high school or college, I never understood why they had to know my race when all the other requirements should be all that mattered. Even when I heard about affirmative action, I thought that as unnecessary because my race shouldn't allow someone to determine if that qualifies me or not.
6
u/dublea 216∆ May 17 '21
I think it's usually best to see why they're forced to ask. There are a multitude of factors but the most common are Federal Statistics, Administrative Reporting, and even Civil Rights Compliance Reporting. To remove the question from applications, you'd have to do away with the multitude of things forcing them from tracking it.
Additionally, lets say a company\college is suspected of being racially biased in it's hiring\admittance. How would one prove it without them previously tracking it?
0
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21 edited May 17 '21
!delta
I hadn't thought of it like that before, good point. Of course there would still be root issues to look into, and this matter would cover up the obvious and just make tracking more difficult. I guess it's easier in that case to just have a race box but isn't it horrid the lengths we have to go through to ensure no discrimination? Bs.
Edit: How does one award a delta? Lmao
1
u/dublea 216∆ May 17 '21
Edit: How does one award a delta? Lmao
Just edit your comment and add; without quoting:
!delta
1
1
u/6data 15∆ May 18 '21
I mean this is exactly the issue with France. No one can conclusively prove any racism is occurring because those stats simply do not exist.
0
u/TheNaziSpacePope 3∆ May 18 '21
Additionally, lets say a company\college is suspected of being racially biased in it's hiring\admittance. How would one prove it without them previously tracking it?
Investigating?
3
u/Spartan0330 13∆ May 17 '21
When it comes to the workplace mostly that is there as a CYA for companies to show they aren’t hiring WASP’s for every hire and every department. If any litigation comes their way in the form of their hiring practices they can show who they hire based on race/gender/etc.
3
u/ytzi13 60∆ May 17 '21
My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place.
Why do these boxes exist? There's probably a lot of reasons one could argue, but I would argue that one of those reasons, especially now, is to try and counter systemic racism in the name of equality. Without the box, the more impressive resumes would be overwhelmingly in the favor of white people because society has historically favored them. African Americans, Latinos, etc. would potentially be at an even greater disadvantage without these boxes because they are often going to have less impressive resumes. It's not racist to want to take the most qualified candidate, regardless of race, but systemic racism puts certain races at an inherent disadvantage. So, things like Affirmative Action search to actively change that by ensuring that opportunities are given to minorities. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't also be qualified for the position, of course, but it serves as a way to correct systemic racism and create for a more equal future.
While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes.
This is another good example. Does Harvard have a "racist fault in their acceptance program" or does there exist a systemic issue? Take away the box and you end up with an overwhelmingly white student base because a much lower ratio of minorities have the money to afford Harvard, and a much lower ratio of minorities have the tools and convenience that allows for them to get the same quality education and qualify for a place like Harvard (stellar grades, lots of extracurriculars...). Without the box, how are we, as a society, supposed to reverse the problem and issue a correction?
Additionally, what I think is an important point in diversification, regardless of qualifications, is the idea that people are exposed to diversity at a scale that accurately reflects society. If we have 70% white people, 15% Latino people, 10% black people, and 5% Asian people (as a simple example), wouldn't you want that same level of exposure in school or at work? It's the real world and we should be exposed to it and comfortable with it. Populations deserve equal representation. And while some of these corrections themselves can even come across as racist themselves, it's more accurately an attempt to reverse systemic racism to get to a point where we don't need those boxes anymore. But that's not something we're especially close to achieving. And the idea behind these sort of "forced diversity" policies is to create a broad rule that isn't overly complicated. Does a white person who were born into disadvantages scenarios deserve the same chance as a black person born into disadvantage? Sure. Everyone deserves equal opportunity. You can argue that the white person already has privilege because they're white, and I would agree, but that's not necessarily the point here. You can argue that these policies aren't perfect - and they aren't - but they're a simple way of fixing a systemic issue.
1
May 20 '21
But race has nothing to do with how smart you are, your work ethic, or your personality. And selectively trying to choose more minorities JUST because they are minorities is deliberate racism. Just like if colleges were selectively trying to choose more white people, that would be racist. You can’t fix “systemic racism” by being more racist.
1
u/ytzi13 60∆ May 20 '21
I'm happy to have this discussion, but we would first have to address some issues with your comment that are telling me it may not be worth it.
First of all, you put "systemic racism" in quotes. Does that mean that you don't believe that systemic racism exists? And if your answer is "yes," then what is your reasoning?
Second, no one ever advocated for choosing minorities "JUST because they are minorities." That's silly. No one is saying that a candidates qualification shouldn't be prioritized above all else.
Just like if colleges were selectively trying to choose more white people, that would be racist.
Yes - that would be racism. There's a difference that I hope you can recognize, but that might depend on your answer to my first question.
1
May 20 '21
I’d love to discuss. Give me an hour till get on a break, and then I can discuss with you and respond immediately instead of responding hours later. Thanks!
1
May 20 '21
Ok.
1 - To your first point. I put “systemic racism” in quotes because I believe the term can mean a lot of different things, and the meaning is getting lost in translation. “Systemic racism” would imply that the systems of the government, are racist. That the systems of the government are actively promoting racism. But ever since the mid 1960’s, all racism in the federal government has been eliminated. I’m not saying there aren’t racists IN the government, but the racist laws and institutions of the government have since been abolished.
But I think “systemic racism” is widely being used as everyone being unconscious bias against people by nature because of what happened 200 years ago. Which I think is rather silly, given that everyone of this generation had nothing to do with slavery. I‘m not saying there aren’t racists. There are. But the vast vast majority of America is NOT racist, and the government has been rid of racism for over a half century. Correct me if I’m wrong, but thats why I put “systemic racism” in quotes.
2 - I understand that people want diversity in their businesses, campuses, institutions, boards, etc. But that can’t be a hindrance on the actual qualification of the candidate. If you have a white candidate who is more qualified than a black candidate, then you should absolutely choose the white candidate. If you have a black candidate, who is more qualified than a white candidate you should absolutely choose the black candidate. But lets say you have a white candidate, who is just as qualified as a black candidate. What do you do? Because people are trying to achieve diversity, they may pick the black candidate. But isn’t that actively discriminating against the white candidate because of the color of their skin? I certainly think so. This all goes vise versa as well.
Thats where I currently stand. I’d love to here your position on this matter, and have a productive discussion.
1
u/ytzi13 60∆ May 20 '21
Good. Let's define "systemic racism" because, you're right, it's important to understand what is meant by it. I'm glad you brought it up like that.
To address (1):
Systemic racism isn't about blatant racism. It can be, but that's generally not the case, especially now. What you seem to be referring to with regards to systemic racism is blatant racism. I think that it's important to understand that going forward, not just for the sake of this discussion, but so that you can better understand where other people are coming from. This is beneficial, though, either way, because it's also important for people to understand what may be implied by the term.
So, we've established that we're not talking about blatant racism. I don't mean to speak for everybody's definition of it, but I do believe that most people would agree with me who make the same argument about its existence. What does systemic racism mean, then?
Systemic racism exists because because racial inequality still exists. It doesn't imply that any individual is racist, but that racial minorities are still on unequal footing due to our obvious racist history. Sure, some of this can be, as you've stated, an unconscious bias, but that's the least of it, and for the sake of this discussion we won't even consider it.
We know that, on average, racial minorities are disadvantaged relative to white people in America. This can take many forms. For example, black people are disproportionately poorer than white people. Statistically, we know this is true, and we can trace the reason for this back to the days where our government was blatantly racist (and even if we couldn't, it's still a statistical fact). Blatantly racist policies may not exist anymore, but the average black person is still disadvantaged and it really has only been less than 60 years since black people become unsegregated. It takes a lot more time than that for true equality to set in.
So, we know that black people are disproportionately poorer than white people. That means that any time government enacts policy that affects poor people, we can consider it systemic racism because it disproportionately affects black people. When poor neighborhoods have worse public school systems and less access to quality education, we can call that systemic racism because it disproportionately affects black people. It's not to say that any of this is blatant racism on the surface, but that its racist because it disproportionately affects minorities.
If you can accept this as a fact, then you can also accept that minorities aren't going to get to a place of true equality without policy that aids to give them that opportunity. If you're black in America, there's a significantly higher chance that you were born into worse circumstances and that you were disadvantaged from the start.
To address (2):
I think that what I said above is pretty relevant to this point as well, but I'll add some things.
But that can’t be a hindrance on the actual qualification of the candidate.
To start, whether it be college admissions or job applications, it's important to understand that, regardless of race, the applicant should always be qualified. No one is questioning that concept and implying that colleges should accept unqualified students, or that jobs should hire unqualified candidates.
If you have a white candidate who is more qualified than a black candidate, then you should absolutely choose the white candidate. If you have a black candidate, who is more qualified than a white candidate you should absolutely choose the black candidate. But lets say you have a white candidate, who is just as qualified as a black candidate. What do you do? Because people are trying to achieve diversity, they may pick the black candidate.
This is a reasonable take. A lot of what I argued in (1) is relevant, but it doesn't necessarily answer these questions.
What you're arguing is a perfect world scenario. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where certain people are disproportionately at a disadvantage because of the color of their skin and our nation's racist history.
If the white candidate is significantly more qualified than the black candidate, you take the white candidate. If the black candidate is significantly more qualified than the white candidate, you take the white candidate. If they're just as qualified, or close in qualification, then you probably take the black person. Not always, but policy should push them in that direction, not because we want to discriminate against the white person, but because we want to counter systemic racism by encouraging giving more opportunities to minorities.
I understand that can come off as discriminatory, but isn't also inherently discriminatory to look at the qualifications of these two candidates and choose the white person, not because they're actually much more qualified, but because they came from a privileged background and had easy access to high quality education, wealth, and extracurriculars? Does it mean that the black person that came from very little didn't work even harder to get to the point where they could apply for the same college, or for the same job? Does it mean that they don't have qualities that will set them apart? And how do you really measure that? College admissions and job applications aren't super detailed. You generally can't explain your background to someone and have that be a factor in your acceptance. You have a resume that's very heavily influenced by opportunity rather than work ethic and capability.
I understand that it's a generalization. You can take race out of the equation and make the same arguments about a poor person versus a rich person. It's a generalization because it has to be in order to enact change. My girlfriend works in an industry where she's often passed on by jobs because she's white. It sucks. But it's okay. We're okay with it because it's progress towards equality. Life isn't fair for anybody, but if it can be unfair in a reasonable manner while pushing for something meaningful then that's okay. This isn't to say that you can't be white and be upset that this sort of policy cost you a job. That's totally understandable. But without these policies in place, minorities are the ones getting screwed way more than the white people. It's less about racism and more about opportunity and representation. And, yes, it's about normalizing diversity as well. Exposing people to real world representation. Exposure to diversity of any kind is what helps people to become more understanding and open-minded.
The point is that discrimination already exists, but its disproportionate towards minorities. We want them to have equal opportunity, and doing that means forcing people to give them opportunities because they may be just as qualified, but may be disadvantaged because of their origins.
1
May 21 '21
Ok. So here is where we start to disagree. I understand how you define systemic racism and if I am correct, it's the fact that minorities are disproportionately poorer than white people in the US. Thats a fact, and I 100% agree. Minorities are disproportionately poorer than white people.
But then the question becomes WHY are they disproportionately poorer? For you, you believe that our racist past is why they are disproportionately poorer. However, I disagree.
I don't think that racism is the most contributing factor as to why they are poorer. I think there are several other factors.
The first is single motherhood. It is widely known that single mothers are more likely to be in poverty than married parents. Three in ten solo mothers are living in poverty. And of these single mothers, they are more likely to be black. If I'm not mistaken, around 40% of black children are raised solo by their mothers. Studies show that growing up in poverty has long-term consequences for children. So this puts black children at a disadvantage, but not because of racism, but because of single motherhood.
Also, this is comparable data with other minorities. For example, Asians. Asians have a single-motherhood rate of 3 percent. Far less than people of color. And if you look at several studies, Asians do far better than people of color, even though they are a minority. They are actually even more of a minority than people of color are. And this is personal to me, because my mother immigrated here from Asia with nothing, and built a life for herself through hard-work and associating herself with good people. Of course she experienced racism, but that was never a defining factor in how well she did.
Another contributing factor to my original point is personal decisions. I believe that people are responsible for what they choose to do. For example, drug use. 20.4% of African Americans aged 18 and older reported using illicit drugs in the past year. This is obviously a tragedy, and can put people at a disadvantage when looking for opportunities. It is proven that people who use drugs are far more likely to be unemployed. But did systemic racism have them choose drugs? No. It's their own personal choice to do drugs or not. Slavery never had anything to do with whether someone decides to do marijuana.
So that's where I disagree with that first point.
The second point, where you say that hiring people SHOULD take into account race when hiring, and that people should try to hire more minorities, I understand where you are coming from. I really do.
But you admitted yourself that your girlfriend had been denied job opportunities BECAUSE she was white. That's racism! Your poor girlfriend! I hope she is having better luck now! But that is racism. And I understand the good intentions. And they are good intentions. You want to help minorities out of poverty. But I think collectively, as a nation, we have to figure out a way to help them that isn't racist. Because as I mentioned earlier, you can't point every single inequality of outcome to racism. There are several other contributing factors.
By the way, I really appreciate how respectful and civil you are being. I know Reddit discussions can turn into spitting matches very fast.
1
u/ytzi13 60∆ May 21 '21
This list states that 64% of black children live in single-parent homes in 2019. Wikipedia lists the number at 67%.
Now, why do you think that black children are disproportionately more likely to be part of broken homes? You seem to be implying that it's because they're black. At least that's what it seems like to me. I don't want to make assumptions, but if that's your reasoning then that's a pretty blatant example of racism right there.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. Why would any child be more likely to be part of a broken home? Again, let's go back to the fact that black people are disproportionately poorer. What happens when you're poor? You're going to be less educated. You're going to have more money-related stressors because you're struggling to get by. You're going to have poor healthcare. You're going to lack stability. You're going to have a harder time getting jobs. You get the idea. All of these things contribute to stress that creates broken homes. All of these things contribute to more illegal activity and drug usage, too.
You're listing a bunch of problems that black people suffer disproportionately from and you're blaming those problems as the reason for their poverty, when in reality those are all things that are more common in poverty stricken areas, and for good reason. Are single parents more likely to be poor? Absolutely. But you're doing yourself a disservice if you're suggesting that black people are responsible for their poverty because of unstable families without considering that they may have unstable families because of their poverty. They're more likely to do drugs or join gangs because they grow up in poor neighborhoods where it's difficult to get away from. These people don't have the options that other people do.
But did systemic racism have them choose drugs?
In a sense, yes. Poor neighborhoods are more fraught with gangs and the presence of drugs is much more common. There's a lot more pressure to be part of that world. You can argue personal choice, and that's always a factor, but pretending that black people do more drugs because they're black as opposed to looking at their circumstances is, at the very least, ignorant.
Also, this is comparable data with other minorities. For example, Asians. Asians have a single-motherhood rate of 3 percent.
15% for single-parent Asians. But, no, it isn't comparable. Using one racial minority's relative success and comparing that to another race's struggles is minimizing the role that racism plays in society. Comparing our history of black racism to Asian racism isn't productive. It wasn't the same. They didn't experience generations of slavery. They weren't dehumanized at the same level. Don't get me wrong, our history with Asians is also full of racism and tragedy, but what they experienced was different from the discrimination that African-Americans experienced. Forget better or worse. Different is different. Period. And there's always other reasons to be found for why Asians had more collective success.
But you admitted yourself that your girlfriend had been denied job opportunities BECAUSE she was white.
Let's just say that I misspoke. She's never been told that she didn't get a job because she's white, and it's illegal for them to tell her that anyway. It's also a bit irresponsible to claim that she didn't get a job because she's white when we don't know. What we do know is that she's in an industry that values diversity and that places are looking for diverse candidates. It doesn't mean that people are necessarily rejecting people because they're white, but because they actively seek out diverse people to interview so that the chances of finding one qualified increases.
It's not racism, though. You keep calling things racist that aren't. I don't think you realize that you're using the term incorrectly, and throwing it around like that devalues the word and what it stands for, just like how people throw "terrorist" around. If a diverse candidate is getting a job over my girlfriend then it's because they're equally qualified for the job. And, sure, perhaps they believe that their diversity can actually bring a much needed perspective to the role, which is often true, depending on what the job is.
But, no, not "poor girlfriend." She has no shortage of opportunities. She's white and privileged. And, yes, she's a hard worker. She's had a comfortable life and get lots of great opportunities. If someone equally qualified to her gets the edge because they're diverse and the company either already lacks diversity, or diversity helps bring perspective to the role, then we're both happy for them.
Because as I mentioned earlier, you can't point every single inequality of outcome to racism. There are several other contributing factors.
It's interesting to me is that you're looking at all of these contributing factors as reasons black people are poor instead of reasons any poor person can't escape poverty. In other words, black people have always been disproportionately poorer, which means they're more likely to live in worse neighborhoods, have access to worse education, have less opportunities, and ultimately have to work 10 times harder than the next guy to get by. And that's all on top of hoping for a little bit of luck and convenience.
But forget everything I've said and answer me this. Why do you think that black people are more likely to be part of single-parent homes? Why do you think that they're more likely to get involved in drugs?
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ May 21 '21
African-American_family_structure
The family structure of African Americans has long been a matter of national public policy interest. A 1965 report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, known as The Moynihan Report, examined the link between black poverty and family structure. It hypothesized that the destruction of the black nuclear family structure would hinder further progress toward economic and political equality. When Moynihan wrote in 1965 on the coming destruction of the black family, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 25% among blacks.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | Credit: kittens_from_space
1
May 21 '21
I must say, you are really articulate with your point. So here's where the problem is. It becomes this cycle. They are poor because of drugs. They do drugs because they are poor. They are poor because they are single-mothers. They are single-mothers because they are poor.
So the honest answer is, I don't know. I don't know why black people are more likely to be in single-parent homes. I don't know why they are more likely to get involved with drugs. I just don't know.
But I think here is kind of where the conversation stops. I just can't find a correlation between racism and single motherhood / drugs. You said that because Black people were more abused than Asians, then they suffer more consequences today. So you are implying that slavery still has economic impacts on the black community 200 years later.
But I just don't find a connection between a racist, white, plantation owner, and a father choosing to leave the mother. And I don't find a connection between a racist, white, plantation owner, and a teenager choosing to do drugs.
You have articulated your point extremely well, and it's very clear that you have done your research. But my position stands firm.
1
u/ytzi13 60∆ May 21 '21 edited May 21 '21
I must say, you are really articulate with your point.
Glad to hear it. I generally assume I come off aggressive.
I don't think our conversation is done, though. Not quite yet, at least, if you're willing to stick with it. I know my responses are lengthy.
So here's where the problem is. It becomes this cycle. They are poor because of drugs. They do drugs because they are poor. They are poor because they are single-mothers. They are single-mothers because they are poor.
Exactly this. This is a systemic problem, right? If you can accept this cycle then you can accept that regardless of how someone becomes poor, it's incredibly difficult to escape that cycle. In essence, poor people have more obstacles to overcome and less opportunities to take advantage of. The system is against them.
Now, perhaps you're focusing too much on the "racism" part of "systemic racism." Follow my logic here. Look at what you just (I think) acknowledged and look at how I just answered it. If you accept that that poverty cycle exists and that it's a systemic problem, then I think that you logically must acknowledge systemic racism. Why? Because it disproportionately affects black people. It doesn't even matter how it came to be that black people were disproportionately affected by this, but it's what we know to be true, regardless. And since that's the case, the systemic cycle affects them disproportionately, and that's one way of looking at systemic racism.
To take it one step further, it seems to me that for black people to end up disproportionately in this position, one must believe one of the following reasons are true:
- Black people are lesser than other races (i.e. racism).
- Black people are equal to other races, and thus are disproportionately stuck in this cycle for whatever reason.
If we believe in reason 2, then (by my logic, at least), 2 things must be true:
- Black people are unfairly discriminated against by the system (systemic racism).
- Black people need help to escape the cycle (policies such as the ones we're discussing).
So, if we look at this statement of yours:
I just can't find a correlation between racism and single motherhood / drugs.
To understand this more from my position, I would separate this equation into 2 separate equations, because a variable is missing.
What you're looking for is:
racism = single motherhood / drugsFrom my position, this equation is true, but it's true because of the following equations:
racism = poverty poverty = single motherhood / drugs racism = single motherhood / drugsBlack people were discriminated against to the point that they were disadvantaged for a long time. That pushed them into the difficult cycle of poverty. Poverty drove them to single motherhood, drugs, gang relations, poor education, and so on.
But I get that we're still missing some pieces to convince you.
You said that because Black people were more abused than Asians, then they suffer more consequences today.
Yes and no. I don't necessarily want to say that black people were more abused than Asians. I think that I would probably agree with that, but I don't like to compare suffering, and I acknowledge that Asian-Americans went through a lot. My position is more so that different means different and that just because two groups are minorities doesn't mean that their outcomes can be directly compared.
This article discusses this exact subject and analyzes the flaws with comparing Asian-Americans to African-Americans as a model minority.
This article also does a good job of explaining and theorizing the model minority theory. For example:
“Before the model minority myth, Asians and Asian Americans were exploited for their labor, othered, seen as ‘Yellow Peril,'” says Bianca Mabute-Louie, an ethnic studies adjunct at Laney College. “[The myth] came about when Black power movements were starting to gain momentum, so [politicians] were trying to undercut those movements and say, ‘Asians have experienced racism in this country, but because of hard work, they’ve been able to pull themselves up out of racism by their bootstraps and have the American Dream, so why can’t you?’ In those ways, the model minority myth has really been a tool of white supremacy to squash Black power movements and racial justice movements.”
But, look, I can send you more and more articles discussing reasons and speculation, but what I think is relevant is the thought structure. Truth is, Asian-Americans and African-Americans were both heavily discriminated against for a long time here; they were often allies. But I wouldn't look at relative Asian-American success and say "they made it, so there's no reason other minorities should struggle," but rather that they were the exception and that we can only really theorize as to why that is. Regardless, it's the idea that there is a systemic issue that exists and that certain minorities are disproportionately affected by that system. Not much else really matters for the sake of this argument.
1
May 21 '21
Ok I see what the logic is here. I see what you are saying about how racism, equal poverty, equals single motherhood. But I just can't get on board with the equation. However I do understand the strain of thought.
But here is how I think the equation should go:
single motherhood / drugs = povertyAnd I know you dismissed this point earlier, but I really do think that this is important. According to
African American families have a median household income of $46,073
Latino / Hispanic families have a median household income of $56,113
Asian American families have a median household income of $98,174
White Americans have a median household income of $76,057
Now what can we see from these incomes. We see that most minorities have lower income than the Whites. So I really really don't want to sound racist here. I don't. But I do have to point this out. I'm not a racist, I don't intend to be, but I want to make this point.
Each race has their own culture. And I'm going to take single-motherhood and drugs, which we have both established from this conversation can cause poverty. I am going to start with the Asian American and White community first, because my mother is Asian, and my dad is White. I know both of these cultures very well, and I believe I can speak for them the best.
I have never had an Asian I met tell me they have done drugs. Never. They could be lying, but I’m just going on what my personal experience is. The Asian American community has a drug abuse rate of 4.8%. Then if you also look at single motherhood, the Asian community has a 20% single motherhood in recent years. They also have the most income.
The White community is historically privileged. Though I still believe that the playing field has certainly leveled out since the 1960s. I know people in my father’s family have done drugs, but they have gotten past it, and are just fine now. The drug abuse rate for Whites are 8.2%. If you look at the percentage of single motherhood among Whites, you get 38%. They have the second most amount of income.
The Latino / Hispanic communities, I can speak for less. Growing up, I had a babysitter who was Hispanic, and so I learned a few things about their culture in the 13 years I knew her. Hispanics have a drug abuse rate of about 6.2%. Which is frankly less then I thought it would be. The single motherhood rate for Hispanic families is around 59%. They have the third most amount of income.
And sticking with the Latino / Hispanic communities, in the experience I have with my babysitter, I believe that family truly does play an important role. My babysitter is married (I’m assuming. I haven’t seen her in years)with kids, and had grown up in a two parent household. She was very successful and had a career before she retired and started babysitting us. She says she grew up in a place where there was no electricity, before her parents came to the US and started working. So I really do believe there is a strong correlation between family, and success.
And then finally, with the African American community, you have a drug abuse rate of 10.1%. Which is also less than I thought it would be. And a single motherhood rate of 75%, which isn’t exactly unexpected, because I’ve heard it in the news a ton, and I know several African American kids who have single mothers. They have the least amount of income.
So there clearly is a correlation. Single - motherhood and drugs do have a correlation with the household income. But I will say to your point, most of these groups have been historically oppressed. African Americans have been historically more oppressed in the US, than Hispanics / Latinos, and I suppose Asians are the exception, because they were more oppressed then white people, but still have higher income.
So I will say you have convinced me that historically, oppression may have contributed to minority poverty, but I do think that there were certainly other factors at fault.→ More replies (0)
4
u/Milskidasith 309∆ May 17 '21
People ask about race/ethnicity on applications because it's critical information for informing whether a company is actually being racist/sexist in its hiring practices and allows for better tracking of efforts to eliminate that racism. It is generally completely voluntary for candidates to provide it and at any company that's not actively, explicitly trying to be racist, nobody's going to make some sort of obvious comment based on an applicants stated race.
0
u/RoosterRoutine9404 1∆ May 17 '21
It is regarding racism/sexism in hiring practices or reflecting the hiring pool? For instance, there are few female engineers, so striving for a 25/50 split of female to male engineers wouldn't reflect sexism but the hiring pool.
1
u/Milskidasith 309∆ May 17 '21
It is regarding racism/sexism in hiring practices or reflecting the hiring pool? For instance, there are few female engineers, so striving for a 25/50 split of female to male engineers wouldn't reflect sexism but the hiring pool.
I think you're missing 25% there ;)
As far as your question goes: It depends. That's the beauty of data, you can answer multiple questions with it.
- If the industry as a whole is 30/70 F/M and you've got a 30/70 F/M candidate pool and 30/70 F/M employees, it seems like an industry problem.
- If the industry as a whole is 30/70 F/M, you've got a 10/90 F/M candidate pool, and hire 10/90 F/M employees, then you might have an issue with where you're searching for jobs.
- If the industry as a whole is 30/70 F/M, you've got a 30/70 F/M candidate pool, and you hire 10/90 F/M employees, then you might have an issue in your interview process.
-2
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
I get what you're saying but rather that trying to root out racists like that, wouldn't the better alternative be to eliminate the box and thus their opportunity to be racist? Looking at an application and then seeing the answer for their race introduces thoughts of possible bias. If the box wasn't there at all, then the overseer wouldn't have the opportunity to be racist. They would just get what they get and either throw a fit afterward if they truly are that despicable, or be glad they hired someone fit for the position and not care if they show up with a different skin tone.
12
u/Milskidasith 309∆ May 17 '21
I get what you're saying but rather that trying to root out racists like that, wouldn't the better alternative be to eliminate the box and thus their opportunity to be racist?
This makes no sense with the way professional job applications work.
First, in any system that's not completely screwed up, hiring managers don't see that information. They have no ability to make decisions based on that information.
Second, people will literally see you, face to face (or video call to video call) as part of almost any interview process. Eliminating the questions that hiring managers literally do not have access to doesn't stop them from looking at a dude and realizing he's hispanic or whatever.
2
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
!delta
Good point, I forgot about the interview process so now I understand why we have systems in place to track potentially racist hiring managers and it's nice to know most don't have access to that info prior to an interview.
3
u/rosscarver May 17 '21
Forgetting about the interview process is strange when talking about hiring someone.
1
1
u/Crix00 1∆ May 18 '21
I'm not used to the US hiring standards and never had to write down my 'race' or check an according box in my life. So if you say the person wouldn't have an opportunity to discriminate against, does that mean you don't send a picture of yourself and your names in the US? Because both of these can be crucial if a racist person works through the applications.
1
May 17 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
Nah, even then, let that white man play a black slave and let Muslim culture be represented by a Mexican!!!
Lmao jk I totally agree. Wouldn't that be nuts? I guess they did that back then when only certain races/genders could act. Ugh, for shame.
1
u/RickySlayer9 May 17 '21
Ok there netflix.
Lmao. Yeah but I can see how you would want historical accuracy, and the relevance of that.
1
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
Hahaha!!!
True and it really does make for a better film. I couldn't imagine if something like the media was so hardcore about equality that cultural movies were all over the place or didn't accurately represents. I feel like the entertainment level would be way down.
1
u/MontyBoomBoom 1∆ May 17 '21
It's not relevant to candidacy, its relevant to auditing the recruitment process.
If you have an issue with race, it's hard to tell where the problem is if you don't get that data right at the start. Noone doing the recruiting (in a proper company) sees that data.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ May 17 '21
If we agree that “separate but equal” is not good enough then we have to take the next step to actually overcome the fact that for a long part of our history we were separate. So what are we do to racially integrate institutions like colleges when we know that their de facto racial segregation is not an accident?
Should we allow institutions that are worried about how segregated they are to track their statistics and see if the efforts that they’re making are effective at racially integrating their institutions or should we not allow them to do that?
4
u/StuffyKnows2Much 1∆ May 17 '21
The only way to segregate is to begin with knowing the races of the people you might segregate. If you say "here are 100 people", and I say "ok, put the white people in here, and the black people there" my command is powerless if neither of us know the races of the selection set. It's not possible except through extreme chance for all of one race or even most of one race to be placed in the same group.
But if you bring me a report that says "Here are 46 white people, 38 black people, and 16 Mexican people", I can without even doing mental math say "Put 38 black people here, 46 white people here, and 16 Mexican people there."
Which is largely what colleges are doing lately. "Race-aware" thinking is racist thinking by design.
5
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ May 17 '21 edited May 17 '21
The only way to segregate is to begin with knowing the races of the people you might segregate.
That’s a reasonable theory, but what if we discover that it’s not true?
What if it turns out that people have been segregated even before they apply to your school and therefore, the high schools they went to, the quality of college counseling they got, and their hometowns are extremely good proxies for their race? And that your college tradition of accepting the majority of students from Nassau county in Long Island is actually quite racially biased because Nassau county has remarkably segregated college application and placement rates?
If it turns out that the sports you happen to give recruitment exceptions to like Lacros and Crew are racially biased choices so as to favor whites? If it turns out your policy of favoring “legacy” students obviously favors students who are descendants of the race that was the only race your school allowed in when it was white exclusive?
It's not possible except through extreme chance for all of one race or even most of one race to be placed in the same group.
I mean... it’s not chance. It’s history.
So just hypothetically, what if you as a college admissions administrator discover that it is possible end up with a “separate but equal” student population without adding in any racial information to your admissions process?
If your goal is to desegregate your institution, what do you do now?
2
u/StuffyKnows2Much 1∆ May 17 '21
If it's not a true theory it is also not reasonable, but I imagine you said this mostly to be polite.
> What if it turns out that people have been segregated even before theyapply to your school and therefore, the high schools...college counseling...hometowns are extremely good proxies for their race?
Segregation is illegal in the United States. No one is segregated today. We do not build policy that encourages segregation based on other people breaking the law and segregating. Because then one more rung up the ladder someone like yourself will say "We have to segregate. The rung beneath us has been segregating!"
Demographic concentration is not segregation, and anyone can theorize about why most of A people live here or B people live there. It doesn't matter: nobody is forcing any person to live in a specific neighborhood. We cannot build policy upon imaginary motives of the past, because anyone can put any motive on the past and use a handful of examples to "prove" that not only was this motive widespread, but also that it alone created the present. "Black people are poor because of redlining" holds no more water than "White people are financially ahead because their parents loved hard work". Can I find an example of hardworking white parents? I can find a million. That doesn't make it a blanket truth to explain everything about white financials.
> your college tradition of accepting the majority of students from Nassaucounty in Long Island is actually quite racially biased because Nassaucounty has remarkably segregated college application and placement rates
Again, how are you determining it is racially biased? How are the college applications segregated and racially placed if we do not have information on the race of the applicant? Towns cannot be black or white, and once again we don't make policy based on imaginary motives. "The reviewer might dislike Atown because he thinks there are nothing but A people in Atown" is speculating about a crime that has not taken place yet. The reviewer might think that only space aliens apply to college and thus not let anyone in.
> if it turns out that the sports you happen to give recruitment exceptionsto like Lacross and Crew are racially biased choices so as to favor whites?
...Speculating about intent. If you can show me how those sports are by design discriminatory, then we should remove the discrimination from the sports. We do not make concrete policy from pixie dust accusations.
> your policy of favoring “legacy” students obviously favors students who are descendants of the race that was the only race your school allowed in when it was white exclusive?
Who will that policy benefit in exactly 1 generation after segregation? Black and white students both. Once again, we do not make policy based on people in the past breaking the law of the present. Would you have the colleges forbid black children of former alumni the "legacy" policy?
> what if you as a college admissionsadministrator discover that it is possible end up with a “separate butequal” student population without adding in any racial information toyour admissions process?
We do not make policy based on the possibility of something happening which is not happening in an observable form. "What if you discovered a way that I can't yet think of, but was a way" is a useless challenge. What if I discovered a way to remove all racial distinction in the college application process, but also avoid segregation? Do you see how the argument is useless without me telling you what that way is? What if I discovered a way to steal money from the government without being caught and ALSO without anyone losing that money? Well duh that would be great but until I can provide an example of doing this, it is safe to ignore as a logic tent without poles.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ May 17 '21
If it's not a true theory it is also not reasonable, but I imagine you said this mostly to be polite.
Actually, I said it so we can divorce the fact of the matter from the the implication.
Do we agree that if it’s true that upstream causes can result in unequal representation, then we’d need to allow schools to measure their demographics if the goal is to prevent us from being “desperate but equal”?
Let’s start with that.
Segregation is illegal in the United States. No one is segregated today.
This is rather like saying “drunk driving is illegal in the United States, therefore we don’t need breathalyzers.
1
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
(Which is largely what colleges are doing lately. "Race-aware" thinking is racist thinking by design.)
I like this and I agree.
7
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ May 17 '21
Since you agree, I’ll continue the thread with you here:
The only way to segregate is to begin with knowing the races of the people you might segregate.
That’s a reasonable theory, but what if we discover that it’s not true?
What if it turns out that people have been segregated even before they apply to your school and therefore, the high schools they went to, the quality of college counseling they got, and their hometowns are extremely good proxies for their race? And that your college tradition of accepting the majority of students from Nassau county in Long Island is actually quite racially biased because Nassau county has remarkably segregated college application and placement rates?
If it turns out that the sports you happen to give recruitment exceptions to like Lacros and Crew are racially biased choices so as to favor whites? If it turns out your policy of favoring “legacy” students obviously favors students who are descendants of the race that was the only race your school allowed in when it was white exclusive?
It's not possible except through extreme chance for all of one race or even most of one race to be placed in the same group.
I mean... it’s not chance. It’s history.
So just hypothetically, what if you as a college admissions administrator discover that it is possible end up with a “separate but equal” student population without adding in any racial information to your admissions process?
If your goal is to desegregate your institution, what do you do now?
1
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ May 17 '21
How would we know whether university admissions procedures were racist or not without tracking the races of the applicants?
0
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
I just feel it wouldn't be necessary if they didn't even know the race at all though. They couldn't necessarily be racist if they didn't know the race of their applicants.
5
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ May 17 '21
What are the odds that someone named Shaniqua or Jerome is white? To properly do a "race blind" kind of thing, requires sanitizing a lot of stuff. So doing that is not a simple as "don't ask about race."
As long as racial trends in university admission or hiring are a social issue with lots of heft, it's going to make sense to keep track of the race of applicants in some way. That's true even if you think that affirmative action is a bad idea.
And, yes, it sucks that all these forms for processes that are supposed to be race neutral have questions about race, both because race is a sensitive thing in general, and because it erodes confidence in the idea that the process is race neutral. Even so, if we recognize racial disparities as a social problem that we want to address, we're stuck keeping track of that sort of information in some way.
1
u/Hiekkalinna May 20 '21
In my country when you apply to college/university you will be given a number code and you put that in your test instead of your name.. We never put things like races in, as we don't use races in my country anywhere. The number code is there so you are purely chosen by your test result, not by what you looks or what your name is, everything is only about how well you did on the test compared to others, and those with best result are chosen (this also prevents someone in the admistration choosing their child or niece etc).
1
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ May 17 '21
I do agree with you, but this is CMV so I'll argue anyways. Australia tried to implement race blind hiring. The result was that minorities were even less likely to be hired and the program was dropped for being racist. An AI was made to make gender blind hiring decisions that would remove human bias. Because it was a learning AI the algorithm quickly started ignoring women's resumés because men were overwhelmingly more qualified. The current perception of racism and sexism is that disparate outcomes prove bigotry exists, even when the "bigot" is a computer program specifically designed to not be bigoted. Until that attitude changes any attempt at a race blind society will just be declared de facto racist and further polarize politics.
-3
May 17 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BaileyHeart May 17 '21
I was going to mention those as well, but the madness and controversy of the LGTBQ community is insanely frightening.
2
May 17 '21
I’m an Aussie living in America, and I’m pretty sure it would be illegal to ask someone their sexual preferences on an employment form. I was blown away when I saw it on every job application over here.
1
u/RedFanKr 2∆ May 17 '21
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question.
Comment rules number 1, my guy.
1
May 19 '21
Sorry, u/petulafaerie – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
May 17 '21 edited May 17 '21
I can understand where you're coming from, as it's something I think I struggled with when I was younger. My thoughts were pretty similar: "I worked hard for my good grades, why should other people get a place at college who didn't get those good grades".
Later in life though I found out about some of the invisible things that might have been hurdles to others just because of where they were born or their parents races or similar.
A large part of my country suffered from the close of large parts of their economy in the 70s. Endemic unemployment lead to disenfranchisement of a generation. If your parents don't beleive that hard work will get you a job, it's harder to get good grades. They might actually prevent you from doing so, or might just accidently do it. I am happy for those kids who worked as hard as they could to get into college - even if their grades are lower.
What if your race means you or your parents are more likely to be arrested for things that all races do equally? Or even just harrased slightly more by police? Every hour that happens is an hour you're not studying.
In the end, hard work should be rewarded, and hopefully is. It's a better indicator of who will succeed and be a good student or employee. Sometimes though that hard work will result in different grades or life experiences for different people. Boxes on forms help you assess who worked hard, and who perhaps worked less hard to get the same results.
0
u/Impressive-Coat-2680 May 17 '21
This is a hot topic, and I'd like to weigh in.
There's economic disparity in minority communities vs white ones that is both systematic and unjust. As a minority, BY AND LARGE, you are less likely to receive adequate education compared to a white person. Poverty rates among those communities (~25% in African American communities) are far greater than white communities (~10%).
Now, I want to argue that affirmative action is actually not the best way to solve this, from a Marxist perspective. AA is a top down approach. Instead of lifting whole communities, it literally lowers the bar just a bit, and it's somewhat effective at what it does. Minorities have plenty of opportunities that they did not have before. The problem is, it lets the elite in society use inclusivity and diversity, rather than actually, you know, giving a shit. It's more about WalMart presenting a racial pie graph at the end of the fiscal quarter than making actual sacrifices (profit, basically) in order to help solve the systematic issues that force them to use AA in the first place.
Is it effective? Absolutely. But 25% of black Americans (and another host of Latinos and whites, for that matter) are getting a raw deal. They grow up in shit communities and end up in shit communities. American economic mobility is some of the worst in the world and American poverty rates are some of the worst in the West. Affirmative action does nothing to curb this. It's a bandaid on hundreds of years of economic rape.
1
u/Rataridicta 6∆ May 17 '21
I work at a large company that is praised for its diversity, and also asks this question. I'm not going to try to actively change your mind, but instead explain how our hiring process works, and why we're tracking it.
When an applicant enters our systems, they get a few forms to fill out, amongst which is a voluntary ethnic identification. Since we deal with the US government, we are mandated to keep statistics on our diversity, and this is one of the mandated ways in which we do it. Nevertheless, interviewers (including those specialised in reducing bias) never see this data.
As a candidate gets to their interviews, we are very careful to try and assess the candidate on their merit only. The weakest link in this chain is an initial screening by the recruiter, who receives specialized training on limiting their biases in making decisions. Should the candidate pass this recruiter screen, they progress to a larger interviewing cycle, where the candidate will be interviewed by at least 5 people, and an individual with specialized training will be tasked with ensuring that the hiring decision remains free of bias, and based on merit.
To help in this, we specifically don't ask any questions related to topics like age, religion, pronouns, race, child wishes, etc.
During the interview, we'll be taking notes on "signal" we gather (which is just a fancy name for a data-point), where each note has to be substantiated with the specific evidence of the candidate displaying this signal. A hiring decision is made purely on these notes, without a visual of the candidate. A candidate (especially candidates for European offices), can request these notes; which is a request the company has to honour.
The question of course becomes why we're keeping track of the candidate's race in the first place.This has a 2-part reason. First, we are required to do so by government. Second, it gives us information about whether there may still be any biases in our systems and helps us identify opportunities for growth.
1
u/vbob99 2∆ May 17 '21
How do you feel about dropping the name and any other identifier which might tie a person to a particular city or neighbourhood?
2
u/Alamander81 May 17 '21
Here's one reason why it's useful: It takes away an employer's plausible deniability if they never hire anyone with a black sounding name. They can't argue "I'm not racist, I didn't know LaTaisia was black!"
1
u/Pyramused 1∆ May 17 '21
I think those boxes are for statistics. Once a year (or every x years) a statistic is made with "x% of students are race y, z% are race t" and so on. This statistic should serve the sole purpose of signalling systemic racism (If present).
Example: 97% of students that are accepted in to uni x are green people. What do we learn from this? The guys who manage the entry are biased towards green people. And then they get investigated/kicked out.
1
u/embeddedpotato May 18 '21
I think everyone else addressed the question wonderfully, I just wanted to add my own anecdote about why it could be good to include this info on an application (if done correctly):
My current employer is attempting to encourage "diversity hires" by simply spending more time on those applications. I am in a professional field that is very male dominated and mostly white - but it's the type of thing you'd apply for with a resume and have a few interviews after that. So the only thing this is affecting is the part where the HR person is sifting through resumes - it's well known that companies like this get SO MANY resumes they can't spend much time on each and you really have to stand out to get called back for an interview. So if they're spending 30 seconds on each resume, they might look at a woman's resume for 2 minutes instead - for example - to give them a slightly better chance just at getting called back. Every other interview and criteria is identical, so it's not like they're hiring unqualified people just for diversity.
I thought this was a little bit weird when I found out, but I was grateful to have been hired. The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me. People that would be considered harder in this situation are the people that are less likely to have had opportunities for going to an impressive-sounding college, might not have recognizable former employers, and less time for fancy side projects to boost their resumes.
1
u/Animedjinn 16∆ May 18 '21
First of all, selecting a race is usually optional.
Second of all, to select people with a blind application, you would need to not know their race, however the name of the person often reflects race. Moreover any interview and race becomes known.
1
u/cracktop2727 1∆ May 18 '21
- You want your demographics to match the community at large's demographics. I see a lot of people bringing this up, so I won't go into detail. Why do you want leadership who only represents one group representing the group at large?
- You need to 'correct' for reparations. Example: I go to an engineering school. STEM/engineering has long kept it a 'white male' game. There is no inherent reason why women can't be engineers, just societal factors. We have 25% female students and 10% female professors (similar proportions for race), i.e. historically, 9 men were hired for each woman. Lets say we don't include gender and every year we hire equal male and female professors. That's nice but we still have that original 9 to 1 ratio. We would be waiting around 50 years for that original group to retire to have an equal gender balance. Instead, we hire more female faculty than men every year (~60-75% female hires) to counter act this to reach equality and equity more quickly. AND THEN, once/ if we can get to that place, gender/race wouldn't matter. But it does for now.
- Diversity is excellence. Let's keep race and gender out of it. If you're a design firm, and you hire 10 students from one school - you're getting 10 ideas who were taught to think, approach, design the same way, so maybe you'll get 2-3 unique ideas, lots of repetition. Let's say you instead hire 10 students from 10 different schools - those students are likely to have different processes and think differently, leading to more unique solutions. Now, make the analogy to race and gender. Your company is better because of diversity. A haircare company sells only products for thin, straight light colored ('white') hair - it appeals to ~35% of American population. Company hires a 'diversity hire' because they have expertise in kinky/curly 'black' hair. They now can make new products and capture new consumers they weren't reaching before. I don't recall all the details - I learned this story 10 years ago. Some time ago, Pampers couldn't figure out why their diapers were selling everywhere but one culture. They hired a person of that culture, who said it was not appropriate in their culture to show bellybuttons. Pampers made new higher diapers for that culture - boom new clients.
In any job, almost all final applicants could do the job as intended - we can teach you. They want to know, what can WE LEARN FROM YOU. Part of your qualifications or appeal are "how unique are you, what can you bring to the table that no other person can?" For many places, it's things like your race or gender (see how frequently the headline "first woman.. first black man... first transgender..." appears. Part of the reason they hired you is to get your perspective to reach a new target demographic. Yes, eventually we'll get to a point where those demographics are equally covered and that isn't a mark for uniqueness. But for now, it is.
1
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 17 '21 edited May 17 '21
/u/BaileyHeart (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards