User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
We readTip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 3 users and 12 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
Niggerati.net or Intrapolitics.org? (Read the first comment before you vote)Niggerati.net 50% (9 votes) Intrapolitics.org 28% (5 votes) Doesn't matter 22% (4 votes) Total votes: 18 Neither twixt nor tween? "Niggerati" is a powderkeg term I'd leave for deathly serious (read: argumentative) political/cultural discussion. If it's a collection of all sorts of black blogs, Intrapolitics seems too specific.
I don't think "argumentative" is necessary. I definitely understand the impact of "Niggerati." My original intent with the N-Net was presentation of a broad spectrum of quality Black blogs, resources, and a space for no-holds-barred discussion among folks who think it's actually important that we thrive. Actually had it going like that for a little while, too. If I hadn't accidentally destroyed the database it might be bigger than P6 by now (not to say that's a huge feat, but...). Anyway, the discussion is taking place here now, which is cool, and the new functionality will debut here because I might actually get some feedback from you folks. But the no-holds-barred discussion is destined for Intrapolitics.org (I may make the A.Philip Randolph quote Intrapolitics.org's mission statement and switch P6's to "Minority views on mainstream news"). It's the network part I'm trying to properly name. That said, I'm open to suggestions. Domain names are cheap. Niggerati has the added benefit of being coined by Zora. Other than that, it's the content that matters, not the domain name. You'll do fine either way. conserve n-net for cthonic discourse and cognitive activism.., I'm with memer on that one. "It's the network part I'm trying to properly name." I'm sorry, but I'm not following quite. What is it you want to do, again?
I've said it before, but an expansion.. Let's categorize white people who might care to post on a black oriented blog.
#1 will always be around no matter what #2 will also always be around #3 and #4 will avoid a site called "Niggerati" for the same reason they wouldn't join three black guys having a conversation where every 20 seconds one heard "hey nigger". The intent seems to be to ask white people to stay away, and these guys sense that and respect it. They might keep listening, but they will not try to join. There exists no moral or intellectual requirement that every opinion be welcome in every conversation. I find no beef with a black site which finds white input defocusing, and thus unwelcome in context. If that's the intended goal, then call it Niggerati. Bounce #1's rudely, #2's a bit less rudely, and expect #3's and #4's to understand what's going on. Further, given how P6 works today, there's no reason why it shouldn't be the goal. === Now if the goal is to attract (4's) while discouraging (3's), I'm sure there is a suitable technique, and I wouldn't resist, but I'm unable to describe the technology. I got no problem with 3's as long as they intend to drop the "for a white guy" and get schooled. 4's too. In fact, just consolidate the two like I do. memer: Just because it's you asking, I'm almost done with some very Bloglines-ish functionality. I'm thinking a sort of cross between Bloglines and Alternet. 5. Folks who do what they can to think right and act right and enjoy (as cnulan put it the other day) loading and stressing the system drive. good stuff, dw...p, that sounds both ambitious and necessary. i'll strap on me thinkin cap. I got no problem with 3's as long as they intend to drop the "for a white guy" and get schooled. It's not "intent", p6. The difference between 3's and 4's is likely to be that 3's are more likely to challenge the teacher to defend the conclusion. That works out ok when the teacher has a convincing defense, but it yields tension when the teacher can see things clear as day but the student sees them to support some alternative conclusion. The teacher ends up giving out a bad grade, and notes on the report card that the sudent is resistant to schooling. The sudent remains basically puzzled. If anything, he was feeling useful in stimulating the teacher to greatness, but ended up punished for interacting rather than memorizing the correct answer.
5. Folks who do what they can to think right and act right and enjoy (as cnulan put it the other day) loading and stressing the system drive. I'm curious as to what might be encoded in that "think right", QB? Would it, for example, include knowing that AA is all of necessary, effective, and fair?
No "code," dw. Just doing the best I can. No "code," dw. Just doing the best I can. Cool. Count me in.
Grateful yet, P?
Changes nothing I said. In fact, just consolidate the two like I do. I thought about this for a while. Indeed, in many ways you're as conservative as you are liberal. Or vice versa. With one big exception: AA. AA as defined by "legally enforced racial preference in hiring and allocation of resources". If we could exclude AA from the analysis, we wouldn't have a lot to dispute, would we? (Not intended as a reason to drop support for AA nor an invitation to open the debate. More an interesting observation.)
My position is: correct the damage that was willfully done. Just that. My position is: don't favor one race over another. Both positions seem so reasonable. Yours doesn't. You want to ban racism verbally but not enforce it legally. You want eternally sequential second chances. Since neither the second chances nor the damage repair is going to be offered, I am now at the point of advising Black folks to just accept white folks are as racist or not as each individually believes to be the case, and will be forever. And no I don't care if white people take the same position because they already do. And because the repercussions of white people's actions and denials, as well as my suggested response are near infinite, we got vast, spacious areas of dispute. Plus you're a Libertarian nut-job. I gave the minarchist libertarian worldview a spin for a while. Not comfortable with it. AA was definitely a necessity at one point. I tend to think it still is, but there should be a definite time limit on this puppy. Wot say another 350 years? A little less? I am now at the point of advising Black folks to just accept white folks are as racist or not as each individually believes to be the case, and will be forever. So racism is totally subjective?
It's not a comment on the nature of racism. It's a suggestion to stop wasting time and energy. we got vast, spacious areas of dispute. May we never run low. If you look at the basic intellectual infrastructure used to support AA, or to support colorblind government, you indeed find that while the AA point serves as a fine summary, it's not a minor disagreement. The broader, underlying disagreement involves whether societial issues should be analyzed with respect to groups or analyzed with respect to individuals. It does however cover much of the differences between P6 and me.
It's not a comment on the nature of racism. It's a suggestion to stop wasting time and energy. Ok, now I see what you're saying. I'm still understanding how non-liberal you are on such issues.
It's "and," not "or." We are individual members of a social species. Deny that and your every conclusion from that point forward is a delusion.
Whatever. We are individual members of a social species. Deny that and your every conclusion from that point forward is a delusion. I don't deny that. The question regards how to draw boundaries around groups, partiularly large groups whose membership is involuntary or at least automatic. You yourself are fond of pointing out that white women derived plenty of benefit from AA in its heyday. So what do you now say about the group known as "American women"? Do we owe American women legally enforced gender preference over men?
Oh? You conflate me with others. dwshelf, If you don't deny this: It's "and," not "or." We are individual members of a social species. Deny that and your every conclusion from that point forward is a delusion. ~p6 Then I'm not following when you say: The question regards how to draw boundaries around groups, partiularly large groups whose membership is involuntary or at least automatic. Please, continue (us slow learners need equal understanding, too) As I see it, there isn't a whole lot to be made of involuntary groups. Where we come to this in partcular is the analysis that one involuntary group, during history, treated another involunary group badly. Or, as P6 would say, white males damaged black males, and white males need to pay for the damage, and black males are collectively owed compensation. Conversely, the individual analysis would say that: Legal discrimination is over with for 40 years now. Illegal discrimination, when it occurs, should be a serious crime, a form of corruption. Individual perps should go to prision, and individual victims should be compensated. However, uninvolved people are just that: uninvolved. They owe nothing, nor are they owed anything. That we are all human is undenyable. Now there do exist groups who acquire liabilities or collectables, but they're universally groups which one voluntarily joins as a competent adult. The group of people categorized by "regularly uses methamphetimine" is correctly feared. The group of people categorized by "works two jobs", or "Boy Scout leaders" is correctly granted respect. Thus, I think we all collectively do owe something to Boy Scout Leaders (or pick your preference if you're hung up not liking the Boy Scouts). I think methamphetimine users owe us something. But I don't think any involuntary group owes any other involuntary group a debt of any kind. Hm. Interesting. Nice, except for the fact that some of the groups you think of as involuntary aren't really so. The group(s) of white males who carry the most weight in society do congregate voluntarily -- and purposefully. And whiteness IS a litmus for membership. At private golf clubs or whatever, wherever. And not to say they're necessarily plotting against others so much as martini banter re best practices for maintaining the hegemony. It's true. If you believe there need not be a collective societal pressure (beyond supposed "shame") to (en)force a mo better playing field, I'm going to assume you also believe we should also do away with all laws that make unions viable. That really so?
You have such an incredible history of getting it wrong that I would appreciate your not attributing ANYTHING to me. The group(s) of white males who carry the most weight in society do congregate voluntarily -- and purposefully. And whiteness IS a litmus for membership. And only a few white males are invited to attend, memer. The voluntary grouping is not of "white males", it's of some very small subset of white males who group on something else. f you believe there need not be a collective societal pressure (beyond supposed "shame") to (en)force a mo better playing field, Let's address the premise first. I have no problem with "collective societal pressure" to end racial discrimination. Either negative or positive. I'm unwilling to legally punish any individual of the out-of-favor race who didn't participate. I'm going to assume you also believe we should also do away with all laws that make unions viable. That really so? I support laws against violence and threatened violence. I support laws which make union organizing legal. I oppose laws which have the direct effect of proteting workers against competition.
You have such an incredible history of getting it wrong that I would appreciate your not attributing ANYTHING to me. Wouldn't you find it fair to actually show where I got it wrong? I'm not claiming I know better than you what you would say, but I'll show you what I meant: Here's the quote:
Here's how I recalled that quote:
What went wrong? Did I not qualify "compensation" to include AA, in a context where we were discussing AA? Back to the earlier one, I recalled:
which you attributed to my confused conflagration of you with PT, CP, and cnulan. And you were correct (a search confirms both that you made no such claim, at least recently, while the others did). I fess up and change my ways when I'm in error, there's no real need to be high handed.
I find it unnecessary. I am not unclear when I set out my positions. The people I'm actually concerned with (Black partisan, remember?) have no issues. I would find it fair for you to listen, and not attribute positions to me you are pretty damn sure I don't hold, or statements I never made. You also need to understand this "not attributing things to me I didn't say" is not negotiable, and not open to discussion at all. You just spun my positions as conservative, and I'm not going to chase around behind you correcting shit...I would just put you in moderation mode and not approve any comment that misrepresents me. I would find it fair for you to listen, and not attribute positions to me you are pretty damn sure I don't hold I would never do that. I enjoy the engagement of ideas, that wouldn't help. , or statements I never made. I might do that, but it would be in error. Do you think I don't suffer when my errors are made public? You just spun my positions as conservative, Not exactly. Please tell me how to engage you, p6. Your words may be clear as can be to black partisans, but to me sometimes they come off less than clear. I've been around long enough to believe that if I would like clarification, then others migth too. Can we go back through that one a bit more slowly? I'm NOT trying to spin your position. I'm trying to understand it. Here's how it started:
I didn't understand that. Maybe I still don't. What I read was "black people should determine for themselves the degree of racism they face". I didn't know what to make of that, so inquired:
(I mean, if every black person individually sorts that kind of thing out, that would be subjective) But that brought the response:
Now I found that enlightening. Near as I can tell it's as far from "be a victim, ask for sympathy" as you can get. I had to stop and ask myself, "is that interpretation consistent with other things I've read by P6?". I concluded that it was conistent, and that I needed to modify at a fairly deep level just what I thought P6 was all about (becaue my previous vague notion was wrong). This new mosaic of P6 seemed to make sense, but it was making sense in a far more conservative perspective than I had formed those many months ago. I replied:
Which apparently came off as twisting. As I've agreed before P6, it's your forum, it's your rules, I post at your pleasure. Let me state clearly why I'm here, and ask you to believe it. I'm here because I enjoy the interaction of ideas with you and the other posters on P6. I seldom post on any similar forum, for a variety of reasons but one of which is that I simply don't have the time. I'm not here to participate in any form of intellectual dishonesty. I'm not here to make you or your ideas or other posters look bad or foolish. I'm not here to dominate the discussion, or to convince you to change. I'm here for the pleasure and growth which derive from the interaction of well-presented competing ideas. It's working. I'm far a better person than when I first arrived. If you can direct me as to how to how to interact in a more optimal way which causes less friction, I'm up for it. Give it a try.
And only a few white males are invited to attend, memer. The voluntary grouping is not of "white males", it's of some very small subset of white males who group on something else. -----------------
No, shelf. Again, I maintain that the whiteness in said membership is not an accident. It is part of the requirements.
In any event, in the same way that not all white ppl are in a position of priveledge (aguable), not all white males are punished by AA anyway. There is an assumption by many anti-AAers that it's easy, or at least that there is some objective method of deciding who is the "best" candidate for a position (i'm talking here of cases where the best applicants have similar qualifications and give reasonably good interview). I assume you've lived long enough in the workplace to realize it's all (best) guesswork. It's a crapshoot -- lots of times the person hired doesn't work out as expected. The best aim of AA is to say where it's close, take a "flier" on the minority if your organization is underrepreseted. In a lot of those cases I'm willing to bet no white man 'lost out' at all -- the best person *was* hired for that job.
If you want to say AA overreaches in some cases and needs to be reigned in some, I can swallow that, but to say it has no place at all -- in this present day and age -- is wildly idealistic. There needs to be a balacnce between viewing the world as it should/ought be vs the world as it actually is. Some smarmy behaviour is harder to get at and legislate than others, but it doesn't mean we should give up, especially when the effects unfairly limits growth of a peoples.
It's not either-or. You need to look at both individual behaviour/responsiblities and that of the group(s). Micro properties do not always transfer to the macro.
The best aim of AA is to say where it's close, take a "flier" on the minority if your organization is underrepreseted. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with a flat out quota, for that matter. What I have a problem with is a legally enforced preference. not all white males are punished by AA anyway Agreed. I've never been penalized by AA. If you want to say AA overreaches in some cases and needs to be reigned in some, I can swallow that, but to say it has no place at all -- in this present day and age -- is wildly idealistic. You'll note that I supplied a somewhat restrictive definition of AA involving legally enforced preference. I have no beef whatsoever with large scale efforts to hire underrepresented groups. I work for a large American company which absolutely makes such an effort. The two things I protest are government actions: 1. giving applicants some extra points in a scoring system based on their race 2. rewarding a racial quota or penalizing the lack thereof That leaves room for actively pursuing progress. Micro properties do not always transfer to the macro. Can you expand this memer? Rats. That's the thing about P6's conversations -- hard to extricate yourself. Really, I'd like to go furhter, but after this i'm pullin myself out of this rabbit hole. Somebody else pick up the baton. Micro properties do not always transfer to the macro.
= the difference between psychology and sociology. how you behave and think in a group setting can be differenct from how you react/process things on your own.
Out of curiosity, are you anti-legalAA more on principal (ought to be) or pragmaticism (fear o backlash)?
1. giving applicants some extra points in a scoring system based on their race
If you recognize that at some level there is a plus-minus 'margin of error' (for ex. two ppl scoring 94 and 98 respectively out of 100 on, say, an aptitude test are essentially equally adept), then one can allow a few extra points (how much is debatable, depends on circumstance) to boost the under-represented if all else essentially the same. Fair?
I'm not sure about #2 either (rewards/punishment).
[edited a bit -- 8:46pm est oct 24, 2005]
This is what you need to do. Stop attempting to represent my position. To anyone. Ever. There's an effective mode of communication. 1st speaker says something. 2nd speaker says "I heard you say blah blah..". 1st speaker says "close on the first blah, but on the second blah I meant something different". At the end of a series, 2nd speaker (and the audience) now truly understands what speaker 1 was saying. Is it your intent that we not use that mode of communication when you're 1st speaker? Why don't you read what I've said? (That's not a question) What you said has a premise. The premise is that I've "represented your position". THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. I've attempted communication, in the best way I know how. I'm def the stoopidiest one in this thread, but even i get this, i think. "I've attempted communication, in the best way I know how." Sorta. Don't sell yourself short -- you can do better. I found three bits in this thread alone that could be a piss-off for him. "I'm still understanding how non-liberal you are on such issues. " "Or, as P6 would say,..." "You yourself are fond of pointing out that white women derived plenty of benefit from AA in its heyday." Tweak it a little, man. It's fine to spit your own opinion here, but P6 is way antsy about the way you paraphrase him. I gather you've been misrepresentin for some time now and it gets aggravating after a while. You know how he loves to repeat himself ;-) So quit it. Whenever you're about set to paraphrase, you'd best triple, quadruple check if you wants to avoid the ire. Pull a specific quote; mebbe start your paraphrase with "what i think P6 is sayin is..." Not so tough, yes?
The first one was seriously a "whatever." Other than that, yeah you got it. Peace. What got me goin was the suggestion that I was misrepresenting P6. Or representing at P6 all. What I now accept is that it looked that way. mebbe start your paraphrase with "what i think P6 is sayin is..." I can live with that. Thanks, memer.
If it was not that way, what exactly were you trying to accomplish with
I don't bullshit. And I've told you already you lost my trust. What have you done since then that I should change my mind? You are the one that want eternal second chances for people who are reflexively racist. Based on that, my opinion is NEVER to associated with yours in any way. If it was not that way, what exactly were you trying to accomplish with
I believed I was correctly resonating to your previous posting, explaining that I understood, offering to be corrected if necessary. I was doing my best to "get it". And I've told you already you lost my trust. In a maybe twisted sense, this is what gives me hope. You're seeing me through a filter which someday may drop away. You are the one that want eternal second chances for people who are reflexively racist. I'm the one who explains how white people experience the white half of racism. So that you can more skillfully confront them. So that you can speak directly to their thoughts.
On that note, shelf, would you mind answering my last question so i can get outta here?
Bullshit. You've had way too many reasons for being here. And that's not MY goal. You've done nothing to earn my trust, and can easily push neutrality into active distrust
You're the one holding up the filter. I'm not the one that must drop it. And I don't much care if you drop it or not because it doesn't have anything to do with my intent. what's this strange relationship-ship-ship??(prince) Out of curiosity, are you anti-legalAA more on principal (ought to be) or pragmaticism (fear o backlash)?
Principle. I believe racial fairness can be codified as a civilized virtue. (I was tempted to say "American" virtue, but a Canadian surely isn't any different.) If we decide to pick preferred races, the preferred race is likely to change over time.
1. giving applicants some extra points in a scoring system based on their race
If you recognize that at some level there is a plus-minus 'margin of error' (for ex. two ppl scoring 94 and 98 respectively out of 100 on, say, an aptitude test are essentially equally adept), then one can allow a few extra points (how much is debatable, depends on circumstance) to boost the under-represented if all else essentially the same. Fair?
No dispute that these kind of things have a degree of imprecision. I find two problems with your analysis.
1. There is no statistical presumption of equality within that margin of error. The margin of error says "we can't be completely sure this candidate is better than the other one", but it does not override "the candidate with the higher score is likely the better candidate".
2. If we were to give the job to a lower scoring candidate, how could that possibly be fair to the higher scoring candidate? How is that not analogous to back of the bus?
what's this strange relationship-ship-ship??(prince) Some data miner in the 22nd century is gonna drag P6 out as an example of something.
Hmmm... I voted that either name was OK with me. After reading the above discussion, I would have to readjust my opinion and say that N-net would appear to be a more appropriate domain name for the project. If we decide to pick preferred races, the preferred race is likely to change over time. perhaps. and if so, so what? so be it. don't ignore the *reason* for the preference, shelf (which is precisely what you're doing in your ivory tower's lay-z-boy recliner). it's not preference b/c one group is inherently better than another (that would be evil), but preference as a basic check and balance system -- idealism must be balanced against what we know of human nature. namely, hegemonies are hard to break, unmolested. in an ideal parallell universe, communism works.
1. There is no statistical presumption of equality within that margin of error.
sure there is. and you agree: "No dispute that these kind of things have a degree of imprecision." at best, there is only argument about how much.
in actual fact all we can say (assume) is, "the candidate with the MARKEDLY higher score is likely the better candidate." The issue is what to do when the scores are within (say) 5% of each other (in other words, essentially the same). then certain "intangibles" (read: biases) come in to play. again, checks and balances, bub. what do you have to fear?
2. If we were to give the job to a lower scoring candidate, how could that possibly be fair to the higher scoring candidate?
again, you're looking at a zero-one, on-off switch while i say it's about degree. sure, holler injustice if a 69 score beats a 92 score. but a 92 over a 97? please. find your seat and think about some real problems in the world.
I vote for Intrapolitics only because it will draw in the unwary. *evil laugh* I'm only speaking up at this point because something memer said (good work, brah) caught my attention. His example was the 5% difference between candidates, which encourages the use of arbitrary factors in hiring decisions. Although DW is sure to disagree, the "69 score beats a 92 score" is very much still a problem today despite weakly enforced federal, state, and local laws about affirmative action but not in favor of African Americans. How else to explain Devah Pager's findings that when it comes to hiring, white felons were preferred over black, non-felon college graduates?. DW, you argue as if AA was a stringently enforced, diligently applied policy on all levels - and that is simply NOT the case. In many cases, educational requirements have been subsituted for racial requirements (since when does an Administrative Assistant need a college degree?) while in others, geographical location serves as a place marker for hiring preferences (i'll have to dig up that article). Although i don't hear it much anymore, the old adage that "Black people have to work 10 times as hard [as whites] for half the pay" is still pretty much in effect. in actual fact all we can say (assume) is, "the candidate with the MARKEDLY higher score is likely the better candidate. This is at odds with basic statistics, as well as intuition. It's the same analysis as the classic statistical sample. Let's say we have a proposition. We ask some sampling of the population whether they agree with the population. The margin of error of our sample will diminish as we sample more people, but let's say we sample enough people to have a margin of error of plus or minus 5%. Of our sample, 51% agree with the proposition. 49% disagree. The margin of error is 5%. We can't say "the population certainly supports the proposition". We CAN say "the population is more likely to support the proposition than not" . It would be wrong to say "the data indicates that there is an equal chance that the population supports or opposes the proposition". Because the data indicates that there is a better than equal chance that the population supports. then certain "intangibles" (read: biases) come in to play. We need to address such biases directly.
DW, you argue as if AA was a stringently enforced, diligently applied policy on all levels - and that is simply NOT the case. Some would like it to be the case. In many cases, educational requirements have been subsituted for racial requirements (since when does an Administrative Assistant need a college degree?) Interesting. There do come some "qualities" associated with people with college degrees. They tend to be far better versed in the ways the world works. They tend to be more socialized. Sincerely, then tend to make better employees: they've achieved at least one important life goal which they could have opted out of. Why would being an army lieutenant require a college degree? So I confess: if I were to be hiring an Adminisrative Assistant, I'd sure prefer one with a college degree. I wouldn't be at all thinking of that as expressing a racial preference. while in others, geographical location serves as a place marker for hiring preferences (i'll have to dig up that article). Please do. I've never seen that.
Yet it's not...and you argue as though it is. Why? Yet it's not...and you argue as though it is. Why? I don't suggest that AA is rigorously enforced here in 2005, and I think you can find in this thread where I referred to AA's "heyday", as being in the past. Can you explain where I've said otherwise?
me (basically quoting you): in actual fact all we can say (assume) is, "the candidate with the MARKEDLY higher score is likely the better candidate.
you: This is at odds with basic statistics, as well as intuition. whuuut?! i add the word "markedly" to your own statement and you disagree with the whole thing? and then throw in some mumbo-jumo about close polling data?! is this is the part of the discussion where we make like the frightened squid and cloud the issues with an inky distraction? ah, you'll not escape so easily, friend. i guess it's my bad for using the term "margin of error," but your example has NOTHING at all to do with my point (and it certainly fails to prove yern). you're waaay off. almost like you done it on purpose -- i think i see what P6 be gettin at. but i'll retract the characterization and try one mo' 'gain... (really, shelf, you're going to have to get better at seeing the broad strokes and the general gist of things as i try to come up with cruise-missile accurate anologies) lookit, all i meant was that 1) determining who's best among candidates is not an exact science. it's guesswork. what you HOPE for is a deal where everybody but one pretty much sucks. you, as even-handed hiring guy, really only earn your pay when dealing with similarly qualified candidates. in other words, things get fuzzier, not sharper, when two (or more) candidates are close to each other. any foo can see distinctions when the scores are far apart. 2) given that any two (or more) candidates are indistinguishable (wrt suitability for role) with sufficiently close ratings, i say you can give the nod to the underepresented. unless white male only ever planned to apply to that one gig, his chances are better'n decent that he'll latch on at some other good opportunity. the rest of us are already used to the idea that you don't win em all. unless you begrudge your tax dollars going to anything for which you do not directly and immediately benefit, i don't see what you have to fear. please explain your fear. I don't suggest that AA is rigorously enforced here in 2005, and I think you can find in this thread where I referred to AA's "heyday", as being in the past. It never has been rigorously enforced. It's never had a heyday, as far as benefitting Black folks. i guess it's my bad for using the term "margin of error," but your example has NOTHING at all to do with my point There was nothing wrong with your use of "margin of error", but there is something wrong with your assertion that being within the margin of error implies equality. in other words, things get fuzzier, not sharper, when two (or more) candidates are close to each other. any foo can see distinctions when the scores are far apart. Sure. given that any two (or more) candidates are indistinguishable (wrt suitability for role) with sufficiently close ratings, i say you can give the nod to the underepresented. Let's be clear here memer. If you own a company and do it that way, no problem from me. If you work for a company and you do it that way, again, no problem. What we're talking about is hiring for a government job, a job where the criteria for hiring is concisely specified. As soon as we agree that "there are good reasons for the government to prefer one race over another", we agree that the goodness of such reasons will be determined by political popularity. the rest of us are already used to the idea that you don't win em all. In the company I work for, a qualified black candidate for an open job like mine will be offered that job 100% of the time. A qualified white candidate needs to out-compete a half dozen other candidates. I'm not protesting that, it's not the government. But the idea that white males don't get turned down when applying for jobs is bogus. It's the hardest part of searching for jobs: allowing other people to pass negative judgement over you and your efforts to impress them, and then getting up and out the next day for more of the same. That said, I feel no desire to protect someone because they're a white male. I'm much more motivated to just be fair to everyone. DW - no comment on the Pager paper? i'm shocked. There do come some "qualities" associated with people with college degrees. They tend to be far better versed in the ways the world works. They tend to be more socialized. Your comments about the "qualities" of an AA with a college degree are off-target. I teach at a Big Ten, and i can tell you right now that many of the students i come into contact with have NO IDEA of how the corporate world works at the clerical/secretarial level (and i'm not talking about the black ones). Why would someone who has a 4 year degree stay at an entry level secretarial job? Not to mention, what about filing, typing letters in MS Word, and faxing REQUIRES a BS or BA? Although i don't know the literature, i'd be willing to bet at least one shoe - heck, i'd bet the whole pair - that the turnover rate for AA's with BA's is higher than AA's without. Sincerely, then tend to make better employees: they've achieved at least one important life goal which they could have opted out of this comment was beneath you, man. you think the retention rates of Black college students reflect their decision to "opt out"? *sigh* Here's a link to the article about race and geographical hiring preferences let's see where you go with this one... Sincerely, they tend to make better employees: they've achieved at least one important life goal which they could have opted out of this comment was beneath you, man. you think the retention rates of Black college students reflect their decision to "opt out"? *sigh* I wasn't thinking about black at all when I was writing that. But yes. The American educational system pretty well guarantees a kid will graduate from high school in all but the worst of areas. The peer and family pressure is tremendous. High school dropouts are considered to be bad candidates for almost any kind of job. College is the first major hurdle that a young person must face on her own. If she wants to drop out, there's no huge infrastructure there begging her to continue. There's the temptations of making money now rather than being a poor student. Thus, the acquistion of that degree says something importantly positive about the graduate. It says that on at least one occasion they followed through on a long term commitment. Here's a link to the article about race and geographical hiring preferences let's see where you go with this one. g
Fascinating, CP. I found myself believing that the author had collected real data and knew how to present it. Here's a quote:
g
The thing to contemplate about this quote (the theme of which was repeated throughout the report) is that social networks work. They work for employees, they work for employers. Several incidences in that report involved hiring unknown and un-vouched for people, and having dismal results. the tears of boredom are welling up, P6. i'm not built for these protracted circular online arguments. i will ask you (as i did Cobb) to put up a wiki expounding on all your various and sundry philosophies. makes things easier for louts like me. i can just link to a specific bit, mebbe add/reduce/remix it a bit and won't have to get into these things with shelf-types.
*rolls up sleeves* once more unto the bitch... There was nothing wrong with your use of "margin of error", but there is something wrong with your assertion that being within the margin of error implies equality. i most def shouldn't have used the term if it got your knickers bunched over statistics. that wasn't the point. i hope i made it more clear now. What we're talking about is hiring for a government job, a job where the criteria for hiring is concisely specified. There is hardly anything magical or "scientific" about a gubmint job spec. There are lots of decent-sized private and public companies that can and do create very specific matrices of duties and the supposed skills/experience to carry them out satisfactorily. But no matter how specific and tight you make those specs, dear dwshelf, it is rare for there to appear a candidate who fits them precisely. Qualitative judgement calls are necessary at some point. It has been my experience that it is still a hit and miss thing. Far from perfect. Perhaps it has been your experience that gubmint hiring agents are deadly accurate and impartial in their practices, which would explain why you cling to the notion that the highest score in some arbitrary matrix -- no matter close the rest are to it -- (almost?) always delivers the best person for the job. I say there are lots of factors that go into that important decision, and bias, a natural human tendency, can creep in. especially when it's close. sometimes unconsciously, sometimes with most-like-me aforethought. in a perfect, ideal world, checks and balances are unnecessary. but this ain't that world. gots to straddle, m'man -- one foot in kingdom-to-come, the other firmly planted on terror firma. your founding fathers had the right idea/l, inserting checks against potential (and all too human) abuse. continue with the refinements. that's it. i'm out. |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
These are the domain names I own. The next site will be to promote Black bloggers, Black opinions on Black issues, stuff like that.
If you're registered at all, you should vote.