Prop 54: More California Craziness

[Grid Iron]

Ward Connerly, the man who initiated the effort to end affirmative action in California, has placed another referendum on the October 7, 2003, ballot. The "Racial Privacy Initiative" would forbid state and local agencies from collecting racial data from people in the areas of "education, public contracting or public employment."

What is truly ridiculous about this proposed law, designated Proposition 54, is that it basically prevents the state government, counties, and cities, from knowing whether or not there is racial discrimination in education, contracting or public employment.

What's more offensive is that the "RPI" proponents claim that this measure eliminates an institution begun by "slave owners" in early America to keep track of their "property." I truly doubt, however, that any African Americans would be in favor of such a law, which essentially prevents the government from collecting evidence of discrimination.

[clintl]

I agree completely. This initiative would basically give the green light to anyone who wanted to engage in racial discrimination, because there would be no legal way to investigate and catch them. It's a terrible initiative.

[mrskippy]

Did you know that in California, that if you are 99 percent Irish (or Scotch, Dutch, German, whatever) and 1 percent Mexican, that you are considered Hispanic? Yup, when you fill out that application, you can mark Hispanic even if you've got blonde hair, blue eyes, and hair skin.

And as such this person is treated more favorably that someone who marks caucasian on their application.

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Did you know that in California, that if you are 99 percent Irish (or Scotch, Dutch, German, whatever) and 1 percent Mexican, that you are considered Hispanic? Yup, when you fill out that application, you can mark Hispanic even if you've got blonde hair, blue eyes, and hair skin.

And as such this person is treated more favorably that someone who marks caucasian on their application.

Not anymore. Connerly's initiative of a few years ago did away with racial preferences completely in the public sector. The purpose of this initiative is ban the collection of data, so that no one knows whether discrimination is taking place.

[mrskippy]

No, they didn't do away with it. This still exists. Even if you have a tiny drop of Mexican blood in you, this state considers you Hispanic. That has never changed.

This is the law that would eliminate that and rightly so. I just don't think its right to consider somebody who is 99 percent Anglo and 1 percent Mexican, to be a Mexican.

And if we're going to ask about race, than let's ask if they are straight/bi/gay; Christian/Jew/Islam/atheist/agnostic/other. After all we already ask if somebodies race and sex. And I've been discriminated for religious reasons, though I never made a big fuss about it and moved on. And I'm sure its safe to assume that a gay has been discriminated in hiring or college admission.

Those are fair questions if this is about seeing if there is discrimination going on.

Just asking race is akin to racial profiling. Also if I remember on my current public sector application I've filled out for the school district, the race questions are on a separate form marked "optional."

[mrskippy]

Dola ... interesting that the proponant of this measure is black. Hmmm, doesn't that mean something?

The more I study this measure, the more I think that that little box is no different than asking your sexual orientation, marital status or religion.

FWIW only one government "agency" (hard to call it that) asks its employees their religion? Anyone venture a guess? And anyone know the reason why this question is asked?

[Grid Iron]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Also if I remember on my current public sector application I've filled out for the school district, the race questions are on a separate form marked "optional."

Correct. Providing such data is optional. If you don't want to give it, you don't have to. So why do we need a racial privacy law, when no one is required to provide that information in the first place?

I don't know of any statute in California that says you are considered Hispanic if you are just 1% Mexican. If there is, I'd like to see it. Of course, it wouldn't matter anyway because under Prop 209, no one can consider race when making job and/or college admissions decisions.

[Grid Iron]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Dola ... interesting that the proponant of this measure is black. Hmmm, doesn't that mean something?

Nope. It doesn't. He appears to have rejected his African-American heritage:

"Connerly has stated he is one-quarter Black, three-eighths Irish, one-quarter French and one-eighth Choctaw.2 While he has variously described himself as both Black and multiracial, he strongly rejects the term African American. . ."

- From Mediatransparency.org (http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/ward_connerly.htm)

Prop 54 is certainly consistent with Connerly's primary occupation--as a consultant for building contractors (Connerly & Associates). Contractors stand to gain considerably by not having to report racial data on the people they hire to the State of California. Consequently, no one can keep tabs on potentially discriminatory practices.

[CAsterling]

Hell he would get my vote if I had one.

Anything that gives goverments less information no matter what gets my support......and the less information goverments have to play with the less of my taxes they can waste on meaningless research.

[mrskippy]

The thing to remember is that this only applies to state employment and state education.

I still say if we're going to ask race, than why not ask sexual orientation, religion, and marital status. After rall, if you're a Christian I may not want to hire you because you'll want Sunday off. If you're a Jew you may want to leave early Friday and have Saturday off. If you're a Muslim you may want Friday off. If you're gay, you may come on to my customers, your co-workers, or whatever. And if you're married, you may not fit in at my office of unmarried men or unmarried women.

Aren't all those examples of discrimination?

Damn straight!!!

But those questions aren't asked. Rather than have a racial profiling box, why not have this box be something like anti-discriminatory polling or something to that effect?

Thing is most would never go for it. But they'll gladly go for the racial thing.

Perhaps there are better ways to determine if there is discrimination taking place. Perhaps this is something that can be included on the W-4, INS, or other govt form after hiring. If too many whites are hired and the database shows that, than you can start digging for what's going on.

One thing I found interesting is that Connerly claims that by marking your race on the ballot, you can make it all that much easier for said employer to toss the application or resume aside (and probably into the shredder). After all, if you're a racist are you going to truly call in applicants who marked Hispanic, black, asian, etc. on their application? If you're one of these races are you going to be favorable to your own race first, because you get to know their status ahead of time? That's one of the arguments the proponants are using and it seems valid to me.

Say you go in for a job interview. It's down to the final two and both finalists will be interviewed together.

Both finalists are white or at least we assume they are, because they both have blonde hair and blue eyes. Both are highly qualified for the job. But Candidate A marked Hispanic on his application, while Candidate B marked non-Hispanic white/caucasian.

What do you do? If you reject Candidate A, is it because you simply thought B was better? Because you didn't believe that Candidate A could be Hispanic? Or because you don't want a Hispanic working for you. All three could be the basis of a discrimination lawsuit.

This question has no place on an application. Perhaps after you're hired, to see if you're hiring ...

Oh wait, can't use minorities anymore, since "Non Hispanic White" is considered a "minority" in the state of California. Yet another reason to support this proposition.

Hey wait, on the second thought ...

I'm "Non Hispanic White." What do you mean you're hiring the other guy? That's it, I'm calling my lawyer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by mrskippy FWIW only one government "agency" (hard to call it that) asks its employees their religion? Anyone venture a guess? And anyone know the reason why this question is asked?

The U.S. military, AFAIK. As I recall, the information is used to know what sort of special care & handling you prefer in the event of your death.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
The U.S. military, AFAIK. As I recall, the information is used to know what sort of special care & handling you prefer in the event of your death.

That is correct. The information is marked on your dog tags.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Grid Iron
Nope. It doesn't. He appears to have rejected his African-American heritage:

"Connerly has stated he is one-quarter Black, three-eighths Irish, one-quarter French and one-eighth Choctaw.2 While he has variously described himself as both Black and multiracial, he strongly rejects the term African American. . ."

It appears he has rejected being referred to as African-American, not black. He probably has never lived or established citizenship in any part of Africa, so I don't see why this is surprising. I would "strongly reject" the term European-American if it was used to describe me.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by mrskippy
That is correct. The information is marked on your dog tags.

I'm glad someone knew. I didn't even have enough of an idea to venture a guess. Learn a new thing every day on FOFC :D

SI

[JW]

Ironic that at a nearby univeristy - Louisiana-Monroe - there was a recent uproar regarding race and dorm room allocations. It seems there were claims by some minority students that dorm rooms were sometimes being allocated based on race. A Justice Department review revealed that (HORRORS!) the university was collecting race data on housing applications. Part of the solution, acceptable to the plaintiffs, was that the university would no longer collect race data. The housing director, who happened to be black, ironically, said the change would be implemented immediately, though he denied housing was allocated based on race. I found several things ironic. First, at many campuses minority students are demanding segregated housing. Second, and more interesting, I found great irony this happened at the same time Prop 54 was creating an uproar in California.

I propose that the civil rights activists don't really want a colorblind society. They want a color-sensitive society, one in which race is considered at every step of the way in life. Without the collection of race data, racial preference programs can't exist. It also allows the civil rights activists to find discrimination where they want to find it, even where it doesn't exist. Many times a case has been made for discrimination based solely on numbers, when in fact there is no discrimination. So I will have to disagree with Grid Iron. Prop 54 proposes to end something that has indeed been done throughout our history - the classification of people according to race for purposes of discriminating in favor or against one group or another.

[Fritz]

what if you have half a drop?

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Fritz
what if you have half a drop?

Half a drop is still a drop. Should have said the smallest drop.

[clintl]

When I hear of some compelling evidence that there are no people left in positions of power with the desire to discriminate against people of other races, I'll consider voting to stop collecting data. But that time has not arrived yet, and until it does, the data is necessary to identify problems. I think Connerly's intentions may be to prevent data from being collected so that it will be hard to determine the impact of his prior initiatives.

[mrskippy]

But clintl, why collect racial data when you don't collect data on sexual orientation, religion and marital status? Surely people have been discriminated against and possibly missed a hiring opportunity for those reasons.

Is it right to call someone a Mexican, even if they're only 1 percent? Black, even if they're only 1 percent? Asian even if their only 1 percent? That's just not right.

People should be hired or given college admission based on merit and experience, not the color of their skin (which, as I've proven is bunk, since you can look like a German, but really be a Mexican for racial profiling purposes).

Also, on most job forms I've completed the racial profiling part is "optional" meaning the employer can't refuse employment if you don't fill it out. They can't refuse employment if you do. Herein lies another problem, you have discrimination with the current system. That said, I fill it out pretty much out of habit.

I'd be willing to compromise and have the racial profiling done after the person fills out the application, sends in their resume, takes employment tests, gets interviewed, and is accpeted. Include it with the tax forms and post-hire paperwork. That simple. From there the state can see who has been hired.

As Connerly and others have noted, what's to stop an employer from merely throwing out or shredding an application marked "black" or "hispanic" before even making a hiring decision?

Doing these things after the fact, forces the employer to read an applicant's application or resume for what it's worth. And if that applicant is good, increases the chances of him/her being called in for the interview.

This is the perfect chance for compromise.

[clintl]

If Connerly's main objective was ending discrimination, he would not be trying to outlaw the collection of data that measures whether we are succeeding. It's as simple as that. I remain convinced that his real objective is to prevent analysis of the effects of his previous initiative banning affirmative action.

[mrskippy]

Remember this data is collected before you're hired and on a job application. Again, I'd support it if it was after you're hired.

Why is it OK to ask race, but not sexual orientation? Religion? Or marital status? Seems like a double standard to me.

Hiring should be done on merit and experience.

And like I said, technically I'm now a minority, since I'm a non-hispanic white. In what way does racial profiling protect me?

[EagleFan]

Just because he doesn't want to be called African-American means that he has rejected his black heritage? Maybe he prefers to be called an American, since that is what we are as citizens.


Also, just how do contractors gain considerably by not reporting the data? Are you saying that all contractors are racists who would hire a less qualified white person over a qualified minority? That helps them how?

[Sharpieman]

Mrskippy, its not about minorities or majorities, its about white and people of color.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
its about white and people of color.

Therein lies a problem. Therein lies a problem in that not all Mexicans are dark skinned/dark haired. And I know people who don't look Asian, but are classified as such.

For all I know, I could be black, Asian or Mexican myself. Do you see my point?

Contractors means companies contracted to do state work, be it a construction project, road work, food services at govt buildings and state schools, etc. I'd think that in some or most of these cases you want the most skilled workers. You also want the best price.

The fuss is that these contractors may not be hiring "people of color" (which doesn't make since, given what I've already said) and that the state doesn't want contractors who don't.

Yet, the state doesnt' seem to care if they turn away someone because they're gay, religious, married/unmarried, etc.

If we are going to keep this question in play, than the other questions must be asked, in the spirit of fairness and equality for all Californians.

At the same time, than we must recognize gay marriage, require that benefits be offered in domestic partnerships, and the like. Not doing so is just as discriminatory as the whole hoopla around Proposition 54.

To me it's an all-or-none proposition.

Perhaps if these issues are becoming too much of a concern, it's time to start making drastic political changes. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenneger, who grew up in a socialist Austria, can bring a little wisdom from home. After all, his country has one of the best public transit systems in the world, unemployment is low, everybody gets paid well, healthcare from what I understand is provided, among other things. That way everybody can truly be put on a level playing field when it comes to jobs, benefits, marriage, etc.

[Sharpieman]

It's not like Arnold made Austria what it is mrskippy.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
It's not like Arnold made Austria what it is mrskippy.

Duh, I know that. :D

Just saying he's familiar with his home and wouldn't mind seeing him incorporate some of the better elements here.

[Buccaneer]

So does that mean American citizens from Egypt, Morocco and South Africa cannot check off the African American box anymore?

Also, if buy into the theory that humankind originated from Africa, does that make all of us African American?

At what point do we emphasize our geographical or cultural heritage over our citizenship? Who gets to choose whether any one of us can use a heritage moniker and who doesn't?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Half a drop is still a drop. Should have said the smallest drop.

ok, what about half of the smallest drop?

[Primal]

I’m 100% for prop 54.

I make a decent living and I’m white, so basically this means I pay more taxes and get no breaks as opposed to someone with a Latin origin that has my same income level.

Just for example. I have a wife and a 2 year old son. Across the street is a Brazilian family (Husband, wife, and their 2 year old son).

I pay for my wife to go to college. His wife goes to college free. Why, because they are Latin and supposedly not as well off as us. This is complete BS, they make the same if not more then I do. It all comes down to the Race checkbox they have when applying for college.

What makes me even madder is they constantly say they hate America and are only here for the free benefits they receive for their son. Once she finishes college they are going back to Brazil.

If I went to Brazil and asked for a free education, child care, health care, etc I would be laughed out of the country.

It makes me feel great that my tax money is used like this.

I've voting for 54 and to get Gray "Gumby" Davis the hell out of office.

[JW]

Originally posted by clintl
When I hear of some compelling evidence that there are no people left in positions of power with the desire to discriminate against people of other races, I'll consider voting to stop collecting data. But that time has not arrived yet, and until it does, the data is necessary to identify problems. I think Connerly's intentions may be to prevent data from being collected so that it will be hard to determine the impact of his prior initiatives.

By your definition, 'that time' will never arrive.

The primary purpose of gathering the data is no longer to identify racism. It is to parcel out benefits based on race. That is why it is wrong. The Civil Rights Era is over, long over.

BTW, do you believe the Justice Department mantra that 'disproportionate representation' of one race in a given area of employment or other area automatically equates to racism? When the numbers are used to 'identify' discrimination, there is typically not discrimination involved, only people's natural inclinations. For example, does the NBA discriminate against Latino players? If not, why are Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans underrepresented in the NBA and black overrepresented. If the situation were reversed, it would be called discrimination.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Buccaneer

At what point do we emphasize our geographical or cultural heritage over our citizenship? Who gets to choose whether any one of us can use a heritage moniker and who doesn't?

The great thing is that question already is on job applications, sort of?

"Are you a U.S. Citizen?" or something to the effect of "Are you legally allowed to work in the US?"

[clintl]

Originally posted by JW
By your definition, 'that time' will never arrive.

The primary purpose of gathering the data is no longer to identify racism. It is to parcel out benefits based on race. That is why it is wrong. The Civil Rights Era is over, long over.



At least with respect to California, you are dead wrong, JW. Racial preferences in public employment and education are already illegal. This is about banning legitimate research on the effects, and preventing the discovery of discrimination if it does occur.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
At least with respect to California, you are dead wrong, JW. Racial preferences in public employment and education are already illegal. This is about banning legitimate research on the effects, and preventing the discovery of discrimination if it does occur.

However clintl, as I've said these racial profiling questions are asked on or with the application for employment. That's the problem with the system as it stands, along with the whole idea of blood. Both could be easily fixed.

1 - Ask the question after hiring. Put it in with the tax forms. They can get just as good of sample and determination if there is discrimination taking place. If you make it part of the application, you leave the door open for discrimination.

2 - Your race should be determined by whatever majority percentage is. If you're 75 percent German, 25 percent Mexican than you shouldn't be considered Hispanic. However if you're 75 percent Mexican, 25 percent German, than you should be considered Hispanic.

[JW]

Originally posted by clintl
At least with respect to California, you are dead wrong, JW. Racial preferences in public employment and education are already illegal. This is about banning legitimate research on the effects, and preventing the discovery of discrimination if it does occur.

No, it is you who are dead wrong. Racial preferences are alive and well through one means or another, officially or unofficially. Certainly you don't believe that in California, no hiring or education decisions are made that involve a consideration of race, with a wink and a nod. This is not about banning legitimate research. It is a statement saying that in America in the 21st Century, one's race is no longer relevant.

I will also have to ask you again what you failed to answer the first time: Do you believe the Justice Department mantra that 'disproportionate representation' of one race in a given area of employment or other area automatically equates to racism? For example, does the NBA discriminate against Latino players? If not, why are Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans underrepresented in the NBA and black overrepresented. If the situation were reversed, it would be called discrimination.

Racial statistics don't prove discrimination.

[Tigercat]

Race is normally an apparent characteristic. Making it easier to discriminate against, and making a characteristic that, IMO, is not of a private matter. Its almost like saying I HAVE TWO HEADS, BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT KNOWING IT.(ok an absurd example, but still...) As stated by others above, how will anyone know if discrimination takes place if these records aren't kept track of? And this isn't just a one way street for minorities either. Believe it or not some sectors of government often prefer minorities(and not because they have to) to a degree in which white americans may also be discriminated against.

In the end this is a measure that can't help and can only hurt. Just a feel good measure for people that are easily frustrated by government and/or discussions about race.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by JW
This is not about banning legitimate research. It is a statement saying that in America in the 21st Century, one's race is no longer relevant.


The problem is, untill we are all of one similar looking and outward appearing race(hmm maybe in 500 years we will all be of a nice bronze color!) and until people do not discriminate on people on the basis of race this will never be the case.

And by just shutting our eyes and pretending that race doesn't effect anything, we hurt our abilities to try to correct injustices that may occur.

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
However clintl, as I've said these racial profiling questions are asked on or with the application for employment. That's the problem with the system as it stands, along with the whole idea of blood. Both could be easily fixed.

1 - Ask the question after hiring. Put it in with the tax forms. They can get just as good of sample and determination if there is discrimination taking place. If you make it part of the application, you leave the door open for discrimination.

2 - Your race should be determined by whatever majority percentage is. If you're 75 percent German, 25 percent Mexican than you shouldn't be considered Hispanic. However if you're 75 percent Mexican, 25 percent German, than you should be considered Hispanic.

That doesn't work if you're trying to determine who isn't getting hired and why.

[clintl]

Originally posted by JW
No, it is you who are dead wrong. Racial preferences are alive and well through one means or another, officially or unofficially. Certainly you don't believe that in California, no hiring or education decisions are made that involve a consideration of race, with a wink and a nod. This is not about banning legitimate research. It is a statement saying that in America in the 21st Century, one's race is no longer relevant.

I will also have to ask you again what you failed to answer the first time: Do you believe the Justice Department mantra that 'disproportionate representation' of one race in a given area of employment or other area automatically equates to racism? For example, does the NBA discriminate against Latino players? If not, why are Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans underrepresented in the NBA and black overrepresented. If the situation were reversed, it would be called discrimination.

Racial statistics don't prove discrimination.

That's one of the reasons you need the data. You will never know unless you are measuring it.

As for your second question, no, I don't believe it automatically equates to racism. You need to dig deeper into the numbers to determine why there is disproportionate representation. But it can be an indication, and has been in many cases.

FWIW, I think the biggest remaining case of discrimination is in K-12 education, and it's not intentional, nor is it based on race at its roots, but it falls disproportionately on people of certain races. And the result is that these children do not get an equal opportunity at the start of their lives. I wish people like Connerly, if they truly want to have a colorblind society, would spent as much time working on that, instead of useless and potentially harmful crap like this intiative.

[JW]

Racial statistics do not prove or disprove discrimination. If that were the case, then we could say the NBA discriminates against every racial group except blacks. Period. I don't think anyone would seriously make that claim, but that is indeed what a racial statistical breakdown of the NBA 'proves,' that is, if we use racial statistics to investigate hiring of NBA players. Likewise, in employment, in education, etc., racial statistics prove nothing, or they prove something quite different from what the civil rights activists want to prove. Using racial statistics to make the case for discrimination is often misleading. But it is the easy way out, facilitating an artificial racial injustice industry that often has no basis in reality, like the NBA example above. Likewise, an NFL team that picks a white coach over a black coach isn't automatically guilty of discrimination, even if blacks are underrepresented as NFL head coaches. If might just mean the NFL team felt one individual was going to do a better job for that team than the other individual. Racial statistics prove nothing in that case. One must know the individual facts of the individual case to know if discrimination existed or not. Discrimination is against individuals, not groups. Likewise, a statistical 'underrepresentation' of blacks at a major law school does nothing to prove discrimination against blacks. And racial preference programs, officially or unofficially, do nothing to solve the underlying problem. Frankly, I think the government classifying people according to race leaves us just one step away from a return to a Jim Crow mentality, where race is more important than anything else.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
That doesn't work if you're trying to determine who isn't getting hired and why.

Of course, how much of this data actually makes it to Sacramento? Isn't the race question supposed to be asked of every applicant? Who gets asked?

I've sent resumes to the state and never once marked my race. I also never got a response, but that's expected when I'm not the only one applying and how the system works today.

The kicker on all of this is that in today's day and age paper applicatations are being tossed in favor of electronic resumes. These electronic resumes get tossed onto a server somewhere, where they stay for a certain period before being purged.

When an employer wants to look through these resumes, they will type in keywords related to what is required for that position.

And even with paper applications, where that question is asked, what is to stop someone from putting those things through a shredder?

There has to be a better way of seeing if people are being discriminated against.

[JW]

Originally posted by mrskippy


There has to be a better way of seeing if people are being discriminated against.

And racial statistics are a terrible way of doing so. Let's take professional sports again? The NFL is overrepresented by black athletes. The PGA is overrepresented by white athletes, as is professional tennis. Does that means the NFL, which supposedly discriminates against black coaches, in fact discriminates against white players? Does it mean the PGA discriminates against blacks? Of course not. In both cases, success is based on merit. Merit has nothing to do with race. Yet some civil rights activists say the very notion of hiring and advancement on merit is racist in itself. And that is why they need the statistics.

And, btw, if we want to end the disparity in major univerisities and graduate programs and in hiring for executive positions, then we have to start at the beginning, in early childhood education. That starts at home, btw. The first four years of life do the most in determining later academic and professional success, as a statistical average, followed by the next four years, i.e., preschool, kindergarten, the early elementary grades. Racial preferences in admissions and hiring, either official or by subterfuge, do nothing to solve that basic problem, and racial statistics on admissions and hiring do nothing to solve it either. If you want to solve disparities in American life, you have to get to the root of the problem, and start in the early years.

For one thing, you can discourage unwed teen pregnancy among young black girls. Children of unwed moms, who make up the majority of black kids today, are far more likely statistically to do poorly academically. Yet show me the civil rights activist who is willing to tackle that problem in the black community.

[clintl]

If you don't measure, you don't know. Statistics are the beginning of the discussion, not the end, but without them, the discussion can't even begin. That's why this is a bad idea.

[Fritz]

Have the lessons of Revenge of the Nerds been ignored by the people of California?

[Bad-example]

That is 13 posts by mrs kippy in this thread. The over/under was 9. Those of you who bet correctly can meet me behind the bleachers to collect your winnings. Congrats!

[mrskippy]

But, alas I've shown some valid statements and also willingness to find a way to make the system better.

[mrskippy]

Dola ...

How much of this data actually gets reported? When does it get reported? How does it get reported.

That is if I fill out an application or send in a resume or whatever, notating that I'm Hispanic, African-American, or whatever, what happens to that data.

I mean, resumes typically go through either an HR department and more often than not straight to a hiring manager. Let's say he looks at my resume and says no. Or calls me in for a resume and says no. I'm not hired, but how is that reported that I'm not hired?

Surely on a job that might attract hundreds or thousands of applicants, they don't go through and tabulate the data. And than combine this with the myriads of other jobs.

And surely a contract company isn't going to go into that much detail. I'm just curious how this is done.

[JW]

Originally posted by clintl
If you don't measure, you don't know. Statistics are the beginning of the discussion, not the end, but without them, the discussion can't even begin. That's why this is a bad idea.

Of course the discussion can begin without statistics, especially if the statistics are an invalid instrument with which to determine if discrimination occurred.

To give another example, let us say Company A has an amount of black executives at least equal to the average for that particularly geographical area. Let us say that John Doe, black executive candidate, is turned down for a promotion and believes if is because of race. The statistics are meaningless and have nothing to do with whether or not discrimination occurred. And they can be used by the company in its defense even if it or one of its executives did discriminate.

Disrcimination is against individuals, not against groups. And in American, our rights are individuals, not group rights. That is the overriding danger or reliance on racial statistics to tell us anything meaningful about discrimination. The racial stats help foster a notion of group rights, or group preferences. That is bad social politics, because the notion of group preferences creates a backlash where none existed before and a sense of entitlement among the benefiting minorities. Better to trash the data base and regard everyone as an individual.

[clintl]

Statistics are at the heart of every serious sociological study. They are a completely valid investigative tool.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by mrskippy
But, alas I've shown some valid statements and also willingness to find a way to make the system better.

No, you just like hearing yourself talk while JW and clintl are having an intelligent debate.

[mrskippy]

Statistics are at the heart of every serious sociological study. They are a completely valid investigative tool.

How many homosexuals were turned down for jobs last year because they were gay? How many women? How many single people? How many married people? And since 9/11, how many people who look Middle Eastern or Muslim?

The problem is that everyone thinks that people are only discriminated against by race and clearly that isn't accurate. Those numbers also aren't made an issue.

Also, statisically speaking California is so diverse now, that I think it's pointless to even be focusing on "the race card" anymore. Take a look at the 2000 Census and tell me California's ethnic makeup.

No, you just like hearing yourself talk while JW and clintl are having an intelligent debate.

Actually it appears clintl and I were debating before JW jumped in. And if you want one-on-one debate, that's why God invented AIM.

[Fritz]

it is my experience that statistics become the goal, and not a tool. At least in the public sector.

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
How many homosexuals were turned down for jobs last year because they were gay? How many women? How many single people? How many married people? And since 9/11, how many people who look Middle Eastern or Muslim?



I don't know. I'm willing to bet that the number of single people is pretty close to zero, though, because they're probably cheaper to employ (no need to worry about dependent benefits).

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
I don't know. I'm willing to bet that the number of single people is pretty close to zero, though, because they're probably cheaper to employ (no need to worry about dependent benefits).

Right about single people. But married people is an interesting one that I'm sure happens enough to make it a valid issue.

[clintl]

Given that our culture favors married people and families, I don't think it's a problem.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
Given that our culture favors married people and families, I don't think it's a problem.

What about gay married people and gay families?

[JW]

Originally posted by clintl
Statistics are at the heart of every serious sociological study. They are a completely valid investigative tool.

The problem is the application of the statistics, which is the point I have been making, and the danger of attempting to use statistics to make determinations about racial discrimination. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that ethnic groups tend for various reasons sometimes to congregate to certain fields (more black NBA players, more white hockey players, for example) with absolutely no basis in racism. Civil rights activists selectively use racial statistics to 'prove' racism when it suits them. Yet over- or underrepresentation does not prove racism. Unfortunately, the Justice Dept. has often used, and continues even in the Bush administration, to use racial statistics as prima facie evidence of discriminatijon where none exists. My own view is that because racial statistics are so often misused, there is more danger in collecting those stats than in not collecting them.

BTW, regardless of what else goes on in this thread, thanks for the rational discussion. I rarely post here these days because I dislike juvenile flamewars. I do see your point. My concern is more with the application of racial statistics than the collection.

[McSweeny]

Originally posted by JW

BTW, regardless of what else goes on in this thread, thanks for the rational discussion.

i'll echo this. this thread has been great reading

[clintl]

Originally posted by JW
BTW, regardless of what else goes on in this thread, thanks for the rational discussion.

Thanks to you as well, JW.

[thirdandlong]

Originally posted by clintl

FWIW, I think the biggest remaining case of discrimination is in K-12 education, and it's not intentional, nor is it based on race at its roots, but it falls disproportionately on people of certain races. And the result is that these children do not get an equal opportunity at the start of their lives. I wish people like Connerly, if they truly want to have a colorblind society, would spent as much time working on that, instead of useless and potentially harmful crap like this intiative.

Just happened across this thread, and wanted to mention a couple of things.

First in regards to what clintl says above. I believe that students are being discriminated against because they are black, hispanic etc. They are reaping the benefits, or lack thereof, of their economic status. Yes black students perform poorly in lousy inner city schools. You know what? So do white students in lousy inner city schools. To claim that students are given a shoddy education because of their race is ridiculous.


In regards to claims that this proposition is not necessary to prevent the usage of racial data to promote one race over another. That is exactly what this proposition is about. Essentially prop 209 was passed making it illegal to use this data, but people who have an agenda that doesn't agree with this law use loopholes to get around the law. This proposition is about closing those loopholes.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Fritz
it is my experience that statistics become the goal, and not a tool. At least in the public sector.

Absolutely right.

I have worked in the public sector in the past and I can say without a doubt that you are correct.

[JW]

As for poor performance by poor minorities in public schools, this is a multi-dimensional problem rooted as much in poverty as anything else. I suspect little if any intentional discrimination against blacks exists in public education today. The biggest problem is with economic status, with poor kids in poor school districts in general getting an inferior education, regardless of race. In La., for example, the vast majority of the substandard public schools are in New Orleans, mostly poor, mostly minority.

But the problem is indeed multi-dimensional. I mentioned earlier that children born into single-parent families are far more likely statistically to fare poorly academically. They are also far more likely to have pre-natal and post-natal health problems. They are far more likely not be read to in the first three years and to start school with a very low vocabulary (a key indicator of later academic failure). They are far more likely to be discipline problems, to drop out, to later end up in jail, and, if female, to become unwed mothers themselves, thus creating a vicious cycle of unwed motherhood.

Now I'm speaking of stats, and I'm not saying that children of unwed mothers WILL have these problems. They are just more likely to have them, far more likely. And guess where the greatest concentration of kids of unwed moms is? Poor black communities, of course. The majority of black kids today are born into single-parent families. In poor communities, the numbers approach 70-80 percent. The gap between those communities and the national average is astounding. The black dads are simply missing. I teach in a poor rural black community. I see girls every year get pregnant and drop out. Last year we had a pregnant sixth grader at school. The majority of my students have no dad at home, and on registration day, many list no dad on registration forms.

Again, I know many committed black dads, and I've worked with many kids of unwed mothers who became successful in school and in life, BUT it is so much harder to do it that way.

If we want to do something 'affirmative' regarding black children, we can start by dealing with the unwed motherhood problem. But it is easier to the civil rights activist hucksters to blame racism than to actually do something about the problems within black communities. And it is easier to manufacture racial preferences at the far end of the education cycle than to deal with the real problems at the start.

[clintl]

Originally posted by thirdandlong
First in regards to what clintl says above. I believe that students are being discriminated against because they are black, hispanic etc. They are reaping the benefits, or lack thereof, of their economic status. Yes black students perform poorly in lousy inner city schools. You know what? So do white students in lousy inner city schools. To claim that students are given a shoddy education because of their race is ridiculous.




You didn't read what I wrote. I said that this type of discrimination is not race-based, but it does exist, and it affects many minority groups disproportionately. And if you really want to end discrimination, you have to be willing to attack that problem.

[JW]

Originally posted by clintl
You didn't read what I wrote. I said that this type of discrimination is not race-based, but it does exist, and it affects many minority groups disproportionately. And if you really want to end discrimination, you have to be willing to attack that problem.

We might disagree on calling it 'discrimination,' because that word has become a loaded term meaning something done deliterately and with malice, but I think we fully agree on the need to address the problem.

[thirdandlong]

Originally posted by clintl
You didn't read what I wrote. I said that this type of discrimination is not race-based, but it does exist, and it affects many minority groups disproportionately. And if you really want to end discrimination, you have to be willing to attack that problem.

Actually I did read what you wrote. You essentially seem to be saying that this "discrimination" affects minorities, is not related to their race, but you want to collect data to demonstrate that the minorities are being discriminated against. All this eventhough you agree that their race has nothing to do with the discrimination you, and I, want addressed. So in what way will racial data help in correcting this injustice?