If someone hires a person based on their color, that's wrong regardless of who's doing it. This includes let's say for example an Indian that hires a white person just because they're white.
Let's say a company is set to hire 1,000 employees. For the first 900 hires, they intentionally exclude white people. Should they, then, make up for this intentional exclusion by then prioritizing white people in their hiring? Or should they correct the problem by giving those who were intentionally excluded priority?
In other words, should the racist status quo be allowed to continue, or should it be intentionally corrected?
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/occupational-segreg...
Punishing people today who had no input into situations in the past, only because of a characteristic they have that they can not alter ... that's just breeding more resentment.
A teenager of my acquaintance was accepted last minute to an educational opportunity, it was well over-subscribed. When they got there they found there were actually places on the course which were not filled. The reason? Those places were only for people of the opposite sex. Students missed the opportunity due only to their sex. How is that fair for those students who missed out?
That's exactly the question: When people miss out due to intentional discrimination, it's not fair.
Should anything be done about that? Of course!
I fail to see how this is controversial, except that people don't want resources to go to those who were discriminated against.
In an ideal world, everybody (in in this case the US) would have access to the same standard of living, the same standard of education, and everyone would start at the same point in their career, so that employers can do blind job applications (censoring out an applicant's name, age, gender, etc) and hire on merit alone.
But that ideal is still far away, as is blind interviewing. Especially in tech where people are judged not only on merit, but on personality as well - you have to work with them, after all. And that's when things like classism, racism - not even the morally indefensible or conscious type - show up.
Should you make up for it, by giving the next cookie to the kid who didn't get one? Of course!
Should you do this even if the other kids kick and scream and say it's "bullshit"? Of course!
You have two kids a boy and a girl. You give the boy a cookie, and the girl gets nothing. Eighty years later your adult grand kids buy cookies and give them to all the little girls in they neighborhood and explicitly exclude the boys because their great aunt didn't get a cookie.
This fixes nothing. The original girl got nothing, the later generation girls get a preference though there's no evidence that they were discriminated against in their own lives or even if they lack cookies. And later generation boys are harmed regardless of how deserving they are of receiving a cookie.
Your non-analogous analogies are strawmen and we really don't need to make analogies or strawmen if we want to discuss AA, DEI, or discrimination. We're all adults and are able to communicate without using analogies or metaphors.
If you're going to talk about generational effects of racial discrimination, then, the answer is, yes, there is plenty of evidence that racial discrimination has a profound impact between generations, even if the primary racism was against a previous generation.
Anyone who uses group metrics to include or exclude an individual is just being racist, sexist, or some other -ist.
There's also the third option: stop discriminating entirely.
No. More racism isnt the solution to racism.
Because its not correcting a past mistake. But rather make new ones that inevittably are going to lead to even more resentment. And also hurting the ones you are supposedly helping by making them question whether they got in through their abilities or through diversity points. Which can lead to quite a large reduction in their self confidence.
I would call the cookie example irrelevant to this.
Treating someone differently because of their race, no matter if positive or negative, is racism.
1. It will make some people resentful.
2. It will cause "doubt" among people who benefit.
In essence, your first argument is about further benefiting the people who are already in an advantaged position. And your second argument is blaming people who would benefit. Yikes. That is some twisted logic.
I will NOT let you put words into my mouth
> 1. It will make some people resentful.
Thats not the reason I am against racism, that is a consequence of racism. The resentment will lead to racism against the people who benefited from the racism. You can't break that cycle with more racism.
> 2. It will cause "doubt" among people who benefit.
It will lead to a lower self esteem, which leads to less likely to negotiate for high salaries, which leads to a wage gap between different races in the same profession.
There are MUCH better ways to get a "better" ratio, like expanding the pool of applicants of underrepresented groups. For example, through advertisments in areas where such people could be located. I have nothing against that.
What I have a problem with, is justifying racism in the name of fighting racism.
> In essence, your first argument is about further benefiting the people who are already in an advantaged position. And your second argument is blaming people who would benefit. Yikes. That is some twisted logic.
This, to me, reads like arguing in bad faith.