Racial Preferences for Britain?

[Ramo]

That's encompassed in the idea of ethics.

[Kuciwalker]

It's entirely possible for the government to do the wrong thing with good intentions

[Ramo]

Ethics determine whether some act is the right or wrong thing (and is not limited to intentions). If something is ethical, it by definition is the right thing (according to whomever's ethics it happens to be). Thus, the ethics should be argued if anything.

My actual point was regarding the best product/"efficiency in the government's bidding process" above all other considerations argument, rather than semantics.

[Kuciwalker]

But the argument against AA has two components: it's ridiculously inefficient and it's largely ineffective or even counterproductive.

[Gibsie]

Well we've not really tried it that much in Britain so far! The second article referenced does mention the success in the 50-50 scheme enacted in Northern Ireland and talks of pilot schemes to be run, i.e. it's not going to be thrown onto the population at large until it is proven effective.

The main failing of AA, to my mind, has been too many simplistic minds thinking, "Gotta hire more minorities", so they go out and hire any minority workers they can as if they've been specifically asked to fulfill a quota, when they haven't. That kind of thinking is definitely prohibited here in Britain- not too long ago someone got a significant payout after having his application rejected based on his white British status.

[Kuciwalker]

Well we've not really tried it that much in Britain so far!

We haven't tried Communism much here in America, either, but looking at the Soviet Union I think I'll pass.

The main failing of AA, to my mind, has been too many simplistic minds thinking, "Gotta hire more minorities", so they go out and hire any minority workers they can as if they've been specifically asked to fulfill a quota, when they haven't. That kind of thinking is definitely prohibited here in Britain

It being prohibited doesn't mean it won't happen - and it will. When you set a quota, people will do what they have to to meet them.

[Gibsie]

Just because it's been messed up in the US doesn't mean it will be messed up here. Well done on only using the next worst thing after Nazism as a comparison though and avoiding Godwinizing the thread

And yeah, of course it being prohibited doesn't mean it won't happen, but at least there is legal precedent against it over here.

[Kuciwalker]

Just because it's been messed up in the US doesn't mean it will be messed up here.

Unless the idea is inherently flawed, which I contend it is. Reverse discrimination inevitably results in resentment of the benefitted minority and thus racism. I've witnessed it happen and it's not pretty. And quotas inevitably result in people being pressured to hire some darkies, regardless of qualifications, because otherwise the company loses its largest customer and goes out of business.

Well done on only using the next worst thing after Nazism as a comparison though and avoiding Godwinizing the thread

And yeah, of course it being prohibited doesn't mean it won't happen, but at least there is legal precedent against it over here.

Over here quotas are illegal. (At least in university admissions.)

[Sikander]

My son in law is Puerto Rican, and thus benefits from "affirmative" action. His father is a vice president of 3M. His family is loaded, and both of his parents have university degrees. This is one of the problems with the government classifying people by race as do racists and racial identity groups. Effectively they are all counterproductive. A system that lent a helping hand to anyone who came from difficult circumstances, whether Appallachian whites, first generation Mexican-Americans, or the children of drug-addicted / abusive parents (or whatever is found to be a sufficient detriment) is vastly preferable.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm sorry, Laz, that Britain seems to be a few decades behind us in working with their racism problem.

A few decades ago, Black GI's were discovering (to their astonishment) that there was no segregation in Britain, and that British publicans were refusing to implement segregation (which was requested by US military commanders).

I repeat the question. When did you last come out of your bubble?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
A few decades ago, Black GI's were discovering (to their astonishment) that there was no segregation in Britain, and that British publicans were refusing to implement segregation (which was requested by US military commanders).

We seem to have leapfrogged you then, given all your problems with the darkies now (at least the ones from Pakistan). We, on the other hand, aren't having any problems hiring Mexicans.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


A few decades ago, Black GI's were discovering (to their astonishment) that there was no segregation in Britain, and that British publicans were refusing to implement segregation (which was requested by US military commanders).

Similarly, Paris has always been noted as treating African Americans much better than America did, which somehow hasnt kept the cites quiet. Perhaps because there arent any african americans in the cites.

It does seem rather odd for european countries to be referencing their (admittedly quite good) records wrt African Americans when discussing their current racial issues.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


We seem to have leapfrogged you then, given all your problems with the darkies now (at least the ones from Pakistan).

And what might those be?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I see the opposite happening, in places where affirmative action is in place: it creates the default assumption in most people that any darkie there only got in because of affirmative action. (I have witnessed this personally; sometimes it's even true.)

That was also what I have seen. My law school had an affirmative action program for aboriginals and black people. A couple of people in the law school who had actually gotten in through regular admissions had had people from WITHIN their own ethnic community make slurs along the line that they were "not good enough to get in on their own"-- So this perception exists.

Also while most of the students actually in the AA program did fine , about 25% ( 3 or 4 out of the 12-16 each year )of them really struggled or were obviously in over their head. This compares with about 2-3 % of regular admissions students.

Also about 20-30% of the folks in the AA program could have gotten into a law school without the program including a couple that had been asked to join the program after they had already been admitted in the regular stream-- They joined for the financial grants and the program wanted them since it improved their numbers

So my personal experience around an AA program was mixed. It did create 6-7 more ethnic lawyers per year than would have otherwise occurred but I know it created a second-rate reputation for all graduating lawyers of those ethnicities. Overall, probably worth it.

I confess in this instance I never really gave a thought to those students that lost out to the lesser qualified students in the program. I guess I figured "tough sh*t"

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Let me repeat the question.

Who thinks the government should be criticized for taking ethical criteria into consideration when those criteria are counterproductive?

Well, first of all it depends on how you determine whether a measure is counter-productive or not, doesn't it?

Secondly, if you're going to present this (assumed)counter-productivity as fact, you can predict that I'm going to back that up, can't you? So hop to it, young Grasshopper.

In my opinion, this particular measure is unlikely to be counterproductive, with all factors taken into consideration. If it turns out that they are, then I'm sure I'll criticise the implementation- but I'm perfectly willing to see it given a shot first.

Now answer the question I put to you. Do you think governments should be denied the right of choice that a consumer should expect?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


However coy you try to be about it, you can't avoid the fact that the government is creating a de facto law for many sectors of the economy.

Yes I can. If they don't like the government conditions, they can either trade in the (much larger) private sector, or sub-contract from the primary government contractors.

Or simply ignore these proposals- which are very, very far from the sole criteria for selection- and trust their excellence in other areas to land them the deal.

This isn't even a de facto law, is it? If it's supposed to be, it's got holes in it that icebergs could tango through.

Our employers have a self-confessed problem of institutional racism? Are you confusing institutional racial imbalance with institutional racism?

No.