Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a business owner, I really don't need anybody to tell me what is the best for my business, I would like to make my own decision. Obviously, this is just wishful thinking.
People who do the hiring with company well being in their minds will be color blind, period. Even if you are the biggest evil racist on earth, I am sure you would want to hire the best candidate for your business. This is just common sense.
I personally don't mind colorblind affirmative action.
In 1997, Texas passed a bill that guarantees every student who finishes in the top 10 percent of their high school class admission to one of the state's flagship campuses (e.g. UT-Austin and Texas A&M), no matter what their SAT scores, extra-curriculars, or ethnicity might be.
Why not try that instead.
Wanted to say on the bold that everyone is not "colorblind." I have personally worked for companies who are aiming to hire a white person or a black person or a woman and it is blatantly stated. When I worked in Atlanta for a particular company, we went out of our way to hire a "white man" because we didn't have enough white men. This happened actually at 2 companies I worked for in Atlanta which had high amount of minority workers.
Also, there are people who are just flat out racist who would not hire someone at their business who was not the right "type" of person. I think due to you being more diplomatic and pragmatic you are ignoring the fact that not everyone has those characteristics. There is also the fact that there are indeed negative biases associated with black people and women in STEM careers in particular. People just think an Asian person would be a better tech person because of internalized, systematic bias, no matter how many qualified black people or white women there are who can do the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
All right everyone, for many years now all federal contractors, that being companies with a contract with the feds, have had to abide by executive order 11246, enforced by the department of labor, an agency called OFCCP. Go read their regs for contractors, it specifically states contractors must set goals for MI otitis and women if their employment in the company does not meet what the availability skill rate is for the group. No where does it state to do this for males and whites.
This applies to construction as well, but they peg the goal for females at 6.9 percent for everyone.
On the above, boxus, you evidently don't know what you are talking about. I have worked as a federal and state procurement manager and I am well aware of executive order 11246 in relation to federal contracts. The orders is basically as follows (taken from Wikipedia for easy reference)
Quote:
It "prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[1] It also requires contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
The order is interpreted by federal procurement officials as contractors not denying work to workers based solely on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The same applies for subcontracts of the prime contractor.
Also, please note that out of the hundreds of billions of dollars of federal funds expended on contracts annually that less than 2% go to minority owned firms. About 5% goes to women owned firms and this includes the many construction companies of white men who put their wives as the owner of their company thinking it will give them an edge. Federal contracts DO NOT allow any sort of preference based on any of the above named factors. They can have "goals" at specific agencies but those are not enforced and are not mandated.
States can indeed set a mandates, usually via a "set aside" program, which is also done at the local municipal/county level in various areas. However, many of the special programs for "set aside" contracting also include a provision for "small businesses" most of whom are white male owned businesses.
Please note that if you are a white male owned business and you complain to procurement/contract managers about how they "pick minorities" instead of your company, you are not getting picked because you have been pegged a whiner. Those who work in the field know that MBEs/WBEs don't get a lot of business with government unless they are highly represented in a specific local area. In Atlanta for example about 40% of my contractors were MBE/black owned firms. This was because there are a lot of black owned firms in Atlanta. State contracting though in the State of Georgia has about 10% MBEs, which is WAY less than the percentage of the minority population in that state.
Also wanted to post an article that I thought was interesting in light of the conversation. Too often it seems with these discussions on CD that many of you think that minorities are hired because there are not enough "qualified candidates" in that population and that they all have psychology degrees.
But last year, 4.5% of all new recipients of bachelor's degrees in computer science or computer engineering from prestigious research universities were African American, and 6.5% were Hispanic, according to data from the Computing Research Association.
So even though there are a small amount of graduates in this particular field, less than half of the black and hispanic graduates obtain employment in technology even though they are "qualified" at least to be an entry level candidate.
One of the major factors cited by the article is what I mentioned above in another post - recruitment. Many top tech companies only recruit from specific schools so as a result they get more white and Asian applicants. And FWIW, based on the article, Asians in tech are hired at a percentage greater than the graduates in technology. They were 18% of the graduates,yet constituted over 45% of the employees. That, in and of itself is a symptom of a bias and lack in recruitment efforts IMO. Also from the article:
Quote:
There are elite computer science departments that graduate larger numbers of African-American and Hispanic students, but they are not the ones where leading companies recruit employees. Stanford, UC-Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, UCLA and MIT are among the most popular for recruiting by tech companies, according to research by Wired magazine.
"That is the major disconnect," said Juan Gilbert, a professor of computer and information science at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
"The premise that if you want diversity, you have to sacrifice quality, is false," he said. His department currently has 25 African-American Ph.D. candidates. Rice University in Houston has a large number of Hispanic students.
"These are very strong programs, top-ranked places that have excellent reputations," he said. "Intel has been hiring from my lab, and they say our students hit it out of the ballpark."
So as stated in my previous post, Intel is just broadening where they are recruiting from. When they do this, they will get a more diverse workforce as a result as they will have a more diverse pool of applicants. There are well qualified minorities who majored in and are proficient in STEM fields who are not getting a shot at working for these top IT firms only due to the fact that they didn't go to a particular university.
For those who will say "well they should have went to Berkeley or MIT or Stanford" everyone cannot go to those 3 schools who work in a STEM field. And just because someone went to those schools doesn't mean they are the best applicant.
Too often it seems too many of you around here when you hear of "diverse" you automatically assume "unqualified" and I will be honest and state that IMO that is evidence of your own internalized bias against women and minorities. Not only white men nor Asians are the best at STEM. They are just traditionally the only ones given the opportunities to show what they can do.
How is merit subjective? Are there subjective factors? Yes. Is merit in itself subjective? No.
If I'm doing the hiring, merit is whatever I say it is.
Therefore, for most jobs, merit is basically a matter of caprice.
Why is it that people that already have jobs find new jobs faster than people who are unemployed and looking for jobs?
Because people who are working can network better...not because they're more qualified. I've never in my life gotten a job based purely on qualifications. Usually, I get in the door because I know someone on the inside.
As I said before, this includes my present job where I definitely wasn't the best qualified candidate. But they didn't want the other guy...they wanted ME!
If I'm doing the hiring, merit is whatever I say it is.
Therefore, for most jobs, merit is basically a matter of caprice.
Why is it that people that already have jobs find new jobs faster than people who are unemployed and looking for jobs?
Because people who are working can network better...not because they're more qualified. I've never in my life gotten a job based purely on qualifications. Usually, I get in the door because I know someone on the inside.
As I said before, this includes my present job where I definitely wasn't the best qualified candidate. But they didn't want the other guy...they wanted ME!
I have found this to be the truth in many instances in places I have worked in the past. Usually I had to interview people and I was usually told who would be hired prior to even calling people to interview. They were going to hire their friend or former colleague or a friend of a friend basically and we had to "go through the motions."
But FWIW, I work in a pretty niche field and my last two positions I obtained because no one else interviewed who had the knowledge and experience I had. I knew no one in either organization. So it does happen but it is rare that people are hired based solely on qualifications. When I first got into this niche field (basically government contracting, I am very well versed in government procurement, regulations, and administration - something most people know nothing about and don't know how to accomplish) I had no experience. The person who hired me for my first position in this field was the mother of my husband's friend. She gave me a job to help out our family for my husband and because she needed someone in her office. She always says she "lucked out" on me because I am a good worker and fast learner. But I never would have gotten the chance if it weren't for that network. I do not have a degree in supply chain or any sort of major government certification in purchasing but both of my more recent employers said that during the interview they could tell I knew what I was talking about so they hired me lol.
I have found this to be the truth in many instances in places I have worked in the past. Usually I had to interview people and I was usually told who would be hired prior to even calling people to interview. They were going to hire their friend or former colleague or a friend of a friend basically and we had to "go through the motions."
But FWIW, I work in a pretty niche field and my last two positions I obtained because no one else interviewed who had the knowledge and experience I had. I knew no one in either organization. So it does happen but it is rare that people are hired based solely on qualifications. When I first got into this niche field (basically government contracting, I am very well versed in government procurement, regulations, and administration - something most people know nothing about and don't know how to accomplish) I had no experience. The person who hired me for my first position in this field was the mother of my husband's friend. She gave me a job to help out our family for my husband and because she needed someone in her office. She always says she "lucked out" on me because I am a good worker and fast learner. But I never would have gotten the chance if it weren't for that network. I do not have a degree in supply chain or any sort of major government certification in purchasing but both of my more recent employers said that during the interview they could tell I knew what I was talking about so they hired me lol.
Right. People that make a big deal out of qualifications are full of it. They know better.
When people say "it's who you know, not what you know," they aren't saying that just to be talking. They know that it's actually true.
I can't figure out your point. Please explain. So our top leading schools should be teaching students who can't even understand what they are learning but get admitted anyway because of their skin color?
Another one who doesn't get it.
Sorry, can't help ya.
Cal Tech is all about merit, and the people it admits are testimony to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
How is merit subjective? Are there subjective factors? Yes. Is merit in itself subjective? No.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
If I'm doing the hiring, merit is whatever I say it is.
Therefore, for most jobs, merit is basically a matter of caprice.
Wrong.
Merit means you can actually perform open-heart surgery successfully, pilot a 747-400 successfully, or play Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata in a way that wins audiences over in Carnegie Hall.
Merit is not you deciding to destroy your own company/business by hiring a bunch of losers and incompetents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
Right. People that make a big deal out of qualifications are full of it. They know better.
When people say "it's who you know, not what you know," they aren't saying that just to be talking. They know that it's actually true.
It's not about race. Intel is trying to protect itself and stay relevant.
Why?
Because they do see a number of black and Hispanics starting to get more and more education. And they're afraid of frustration. They are afraid that blacks and Hispanics will mobilize and start building their own companies. And they will start taking Intel consumer base.
With that said its very hard to compete with Intel as creating chips is very expensive. You need very expensive factories costing in the billions. But the bottom line is we need chips less than we need software.
And I think China balances the playing field when it comes to new entries into that market.
I need some help from the liberals. How is this not racism and sexism?
"Intel set a goal last year: Of all new hires, 40 percent have to be women or under-represented minorities (black, Latino, Native American). The company had never hit that level in the past. So for Intel, it was an ambitious goal. And the company reports today: It managed to exceed it, hitting 43.1 percent."
Also why is there no diversity initiative in mining, drilling, farming and construction industry where the vast majority of the workers are men??? How about athletes? NBA? NFL where most players are of a protected race. Why no diversity is acceptable?
You watch ESPN nowadays and think it is the View"... Companies need to hire the best candidates. However, under-represented groups do have an argument if they are in the local community yet are overlooked.
The NBA is already doing this with Euro and South American players. How many guys are there now with last names ending in "vic" pronounced "Vitch"? The problem is the NFL, and NBA are trying to appease the international crowd for money and turns their back on their own qualified athletes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
