[qwery_hi]

Lobowolf, on Jun 30 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

So you are even against affirmative action when it is in the employer's own interests to increase the diversity among its employee's? I.e. the employer cannot hire who is the most useful person in the job, but has to hire someone "most qualified" according to an abstract color-blind standard?

My turn.

Let's say a particular campus (UCLA, for example) would like to have a more diverse campus. And let's say that Asian-American students are "overrepresented" in the school's demographics. If two applicants are being considered for the last admissions spot, and an Asian-American student is regarded as slightly better than an African-American candiate by objective criteria (LSAT, grades), and even by color-blind subjective criteria (reading their essays without knowing the races of the applicants), and they grew up in the same socio-economic stratum and attended the same schools, would you favor a public school's being able to reject the Asian-American student solely on the basis of race, to create a more diverse campus?

I would flip a coin. If the goal is to increase the sociological fitness, we could do worse than learn from evolution and biological fitness.

[cherdanno]

kenberg, on Jun 30 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 30 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

For those of you agreeing with SCOTUS here: do you agre with affirmative action in any other situation?

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985.

I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor).

So, say a high school in a diverse district has only white non-Hispanic teachers. Would you agree with the school looking specifically for Hispanic or Black teachers? Or is that unfair preference against white teachers with equal qualification?

Although this is an ongoing interchange between Lobo and Cher, I want to comment.

The firefighter's case is real. The diverse (with the usual coded meaning of the word) high school with all white teachers is hypothetical. Let's look at a real system.

Until I moved some four years ago I lived for several years in Prince George's County in Maryland. The schools system is county run and is frequently referred to as the wealthiest majority black school district in the nation. If this hypothetical problem of excessive whiteness in the teaching force with a diverse student body were to arise, PG would be a likely place.

In fact what happens is that they have a great deal of difficulty attracting strong teachers. In the spring they announce that they will be hiring only fully qualified teachers. As the summer wears on reality sets in and they hire whomever they can get. They would be happy to have good teachers, be they black, white or heliotrope. If they had a qualified white candidate and a qualified black candidate I am sure they would hire them both and probably send out for champaigne.

It's better to stick with the case of the firefighters. They are real.

FWIW, I didn't mean "diverse" in the "usual coded meaning of the word". Sorry, I am not that American yet

Sure the example is made up, but I don't think the principle is. African-Americans in the Baltimore police force? Women among the faculty in math/science departments at research universities?

[PassedOut]

Good thing Gail Collins watched the confirmation hearings. I missed some of the exchanges that caught her attention: 3 Days of the Sotomayor

Quote

SENATOR HERB KOHL: I believe I heard somewhere that you would join the Supreme Court with more federal judicial experience than any justice in the past 100 years. Doesn’t your very, very low reversal rate show how exceptionally well you have performed?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Senator, thank you for that softball question. Which reminds me to point out that in 1995 I ended the baseball strike.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Judge, before I read a string of anonymous comments about your temperament problem, I’d like to make you repeat that wise Latina remark again just for the heck of it.

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to revisit that matter. I appreciate that the man who once said he’d drown himself if North Carolina went for Obama has a special contribution to make when it comes to the importance of thinking before you speak.

[kenberg]

I like that. A lot. The best humor always has some truth lurking around it.

[y66]

Thanks for that post PassedOut. Good one!

[cherdanno]

The biggest joke though was "Jeff Sessions, the defender against racial bias".

[PassedOut]

cherdanno, on Jul 18 2009, 08:36 AM, said:

The biggest joke though was "Jeff Sessions, the defender against racial bias".

Yes, Jeff Sessions was quite amusing, given the history. I thought Gail Collins converyed the gist of the hearings in a remarkably concise way.

I also like her regular back-and-forths with David Brooks: Partisan Health Care Politics

Quote

Gail Collins: I cannot possibly argue against any scenario that has Congress doing the easiest possible thing. But I do have some pathetic little hopes, plus one yowl of fury.

David Brooks: By the way, your optimism is contagious. I’ve moved from Sylvia Plath levels of despair all the way up to Dostoyevsky.