I Want to be Different, Just Like Everyone Else

April 4, 2006 7:28 PM

How is diversity (particularly in hiring) not racism/sexism/ageism/ismism?

Prompted by this recent question and the subject of Talk of the Nation on NPR the other day about overcoming "diversity fatigue."

My question is serious and intended to gain understanding, not to start a flame war. I am a professional, educated, white, straight, married-divorced-married male solidly between 18 and 70 years of age from a middle class two-parent, multiple-sibling, Sunday-church-going American family. While I do not suffer from "liberal race guilt," neither do I enjoy the company of blatant racists, sexists, homophobes, or religious (or anti-religious) zealots of any stripe.

In my professional life (where I have actually been told I am "not diverse"), I have noticed little correlation between someone's race, creed (zealotry aside), color, sexual orientation, national origin, etc. and my ability (or inability) to work (or socialize) with or for them or them with me. I do not kid myself that I am completely free from prejudice—finding myself dropped into the middle of an unfamiliar city in a predominantly poor and <whatever> neighborhood would be scary—but -isms are simply not a factor in my daily life or how I generally relate to people. In fact, I am an avid "foodie" with a minor (but respectful) interest in languages, cultures, and religions, so I tend to welcome having folks unlike myself around.

So, back to the question. If I were in a position to hire someone, and—for the sake of argument, assuming all other qualifications were equal—I hired a white guy, some would call me a racist. If I hired a woman or minority, though, I'd be "promoting diversity." On the other hand, if I were a minority or woman and hired a white guy, I expect it would (from a corporate view) probably go unnoticed. If I hired another minority or woman—even of the same minority—I'd probably still get points for promoting diversity.

How does this make any sense?

posted by phrits to Society & Culture (53 answers total)

Best answer: If I were in a position to hire someone, and—for the sake of argument, assuming all other qualifications were equal—I hired a white guy, some would call me a racist. If I hired a woman or minority, though, I'd be "promoting diversity."

The emphasis is mine. If all other things really are equal, what basis is there to choose one over the other? "Promoting diversity" doesnt mean: Promote the underqualified minority. In this case it means, all other things being equal, promote the minority because they will add a unique background and perspective to the company - and that itself should be considered a tie-breaker qualification.

Thats how it makes sense.
posted by vacapinta at 7:48 PM on April 4, 2006

So, back to the question. If I were in a position to hire someone, and—for the sake of argument, assuming all other qualifications were equal—I hired a white guy, some would call me a racist.

Who is this some? He sounds like an asshole.

Seriously though, while you may not be a racist, some people are. The idea behind affirmative action is that there are enough racists in positions of power to make it harder for someone of minority status to get a job by X%. So to fix that, you make it Y% easier for them to get a job. If X = Y the net ease or difficulty of getting a good job for a member of discriminated against class vs. a non-discriminated against class is equal

Obviously the balance can go either way, and some people would argue that Y% is much greater then X%. If it is, then it's a problem. Clearly, X is a lot less then it was in the 1970s.

On the other hand, if X = Y today, the pay for women and minorities of equal qualifications would be equal, and it's not.

Does that make sense?
posted by delmoi at 8:04 PM on April 4, 2006

Best answer: Also "diversity" as a goal is simply to get a more interesting mix of people. I think this is a good goal in a university setting, because a monoculture can be boring, and it's good for people to be exposed to different people in a collage setting.
posted by delmoi at 8:05 PM on April 4, 2006

Response by poster: vacapinta: I guess I can see that. I think part of my frustration is that there are definitely far too many times when it does come down to promoting the underqualified minority. I've seen folks not considered because of their lack of "diversity"--not me: I have less than little interest in climbing the corporate political ladder--and a female boss of mine who had turned down an offer of promotion because it was made to the most qualified woman in the running. (She impressed the hell out of me with that principled stand. I'd've probably taken it.) Maybe it's just good intentions run amok. The road to hell, and all that.

ChasFile: Way off the subject. Cause and effect for (and affects of) "traditional" women's jobs, education and socio-economic backgrounds correlating with professional status, etc. are far beyond the scope of the question and certainly play a significant part in the (number out of your ass) on the dollar figures. While I'm aware that there are "good ol' boy" networks out there--maybe even pervasively--they don't apply to my question as asked. Thank you for your constructive post script--that's the part you wrote after the "P.S."--and other than that, go to hell.
posted by phrits at 8:08 PM on April 4, 2006

Best answer: Depending on how interested you are in exploring this question, you may want to check out Orlando Patterson's The Ordeal of Integration. It's a bit out of date, but he makes some very solid points regarding the 'why' of affirmative action, and some surprising stats on how many people are actually directly and negatively affected by reverse affirmative action discrimination (hint: it's practically none).
posted by Espy Gillespie at 8:11 PM on April 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

There are different intentions in the two kinds of methods you asked about. Affirmative action is intended to rectify the past and present incidences of racism. Racism, sexism and so on are intended specifically to hold one race, sex, or so as superior (or simply to denigrate another race, sex, age, etc).
posted by ontic at 8:12 PM on April 4, 2006

phrits: part of the problem may be that some companies take it to heart more then others. So you have a situation where there's a ton of 'diversity programs' in some companies, evening out pervasive 'good ole boy' style management in most of the working world.
posted by delmoi at 8:12 PM on April 4, 2006

Oh, and hiring or promiting un- or underqualified minorities instead of anyone else who is qualified is illegal. If proven, the employment discrimination lawsuit can be quite harmful.
posted by ontic at 8:18 PM on April 4, 2006

Best answer: How is diversity (particularly in hiring) not racism/sexism/ageism/ismism?

Because diversity, in and of itself, is not an indicator of discriminatory hiring practices.
posted by maxreax at 8:19 PM on April 4, 2006

By the way, I work in IT, a field absolutely dominated by Men. There are a total of two women working for my small company one elderly women doing office management, and one less elderly woman doing documentation.

It's so boring.

I absolutely support programs, and whatever to help get more chicks into Computer Science. I imagine being a corporate upper up might feel similar.
posted by delmoi at 8:21 PM on April 4, 2006

Response by poster: Espy Gillespie: Thanks for the book link. While I detest the oxymoronic term "reverse ... discrimination," I'll check out the book to see what it has to say.

maxreaux: Agreed. Also agreed with delmoi that diversity as a goal unto itself has merit.

delmoi: I think what I'm picking up from you and others is that "diversity" is really just another word for affirmative action without using the controversial term. Fair enough, and I guess I should've known that but I was hoping it was something better. Affirmative action isn't an unqualified evil by any stretch of the imagination, but my own opinion is that it's a less necessary approach now than when it was first introduced. While we've a long way to go toward reaching a meritocracy in the workplace, we've come much further than some folks care to admit. While I don't fully agree with it, at least I begin to understand, and I can chalk most of the rest up to corporate posturing.

On preview: I'm also in IT, delmoi, and I'm all for chicks in IT. It's weird where I work, though, that the rank and file is 70% male, and 60% of the IT management is female.

G'night, folks.
posted by phrits at 8:38 PM on April 4, 2006

Best answer: If I were in a position to hire someone, and—for the sake of argument, assuming all other qualifications were equal—I hired a white guy, some would call me a racist. If I hired a woman or minority, though, I'd be "promoting diversity."

This is wrong. If you really believe this, you've been listening too much to the conservative opponents of affirmative action. I'm not saying those folks don't have any good points. They have some. But the simple fact is that no SINGLE hire is more "diverse" than another. Diversity is about the makeup of groups. If your group is ALREADY all male, then yes, hiring a woman does, by definition, make your workplace more demographically diverse. Do you find that at all controversial? It's factually accurate. But only if you're already in a very homegeneous situation!

Anyone engaged in any serious discussion about diversity does not define the term to mean diversity = "lots of non-white people around." At least, no one credible, anymore.

What diversity DOES mean is: the demographics in your workplace should reflect the demographics in your community, or at least the demographic diversity of your pool of applicants.

If you REALLY live in a 100% white male town, then great: staff your business with all white guys. However, I guarantee you that you don't live in a town of all white males. God I hope not, anyway. Perhaps no black people ever applied for a job at your company. Okay. That's not your fault, per se, but if any black folks live nearby, you might want to find out WHY none of them EVER apply. The answer might be innocuous or it might be a real eye-opener. Maybe the fact is they don't want to work with a bunch of racist white people. You have to at least ask the question.

The simple fact is that a lot of the time there IS a big difference between the demographics of the community / pool of applicants and the staff of a given company. If that's the case, you'd better be DAMN well prepared to PROVE that the white male applicants are the best-qualified for the job in EVERY case, otherwise, yes, goddamit, you have a potentially racist selection filter going on in your hiring.

"Diversity fatigue" is an absolutely pathetic term, by the way. How can you be tired of civil rights? I really appreciate your asking this question and I take it in very good faith. Keep on asking and looking outside the mainstream rhetoric about this issue. It's so easy to mischaracterize and politicize and turn into a great big ball of shit. That's all opponents of diversity even have to do: they don't have to win the debate, they just have to noise it up, make it disingenuous, and ruin it so that the debate doesn't happen at all. Fight that - because it's an insidious process that hides some pretty amazing basic truths, like: every single part of our country has lots of different demographics living together.
posted by scarabic at 8:51 PM on April 4, 2006

P.S. you are a moron and this question sucks.

Uncool. Why does this question suck? And what makes the poster a moron?

[deletes long winded screed]

If someone is honestly seeking answers who are we to devalue the question?

/sorry for the derail.
posted by quin at 8:54 PM on April 4, 2006

Or on posting, what scarabic said much more eloquently.
posted by quin at 8:57 PM on April 4, 2006

phrits: Well, I think what you were describing was Affirmative Action. What you call it doesn't make any difference.

"Diversity" is a measure. Affirmative Action can increase diversity, as can other things (like more recruiting of minorities, rather then hiring preference).

On preview: I'm also in IT, delmoi, and I'm all for chicks in IT. It's weird where I work, though, that the rank and file is 70% male, and 60% of the IT management is female.

Sounds like you might have an Old Girl's network.
posted by delmoi at 9:01 PM on April 4, 2006

I have difficulty seeing how one's skin color in and of itself would indicate a unique background and viewpoint -- that assumes that all people who are of a particular ethnicity share some culture, merely by heritage. As someone who has "ethnic" roots but was brought up in a similar fashion to most of white suburban america I have trouble with this.

I realize there may be a statistical argument that says "well, people of this skin color or that sex are X% disadvantaged, so we'll hire/accept them", but when you get to the point where you're qualified for a job/school, how likely is it that you *were* disadvantaged?

Most of the minorities I knew in college didn't come from the "ghetto" -- they came from middle class families in the suburbs, just like me, and again, our cultural experiences were more similar to each others than to people who were more financially disadvantaged, despite that we did not share an ethnicity.

How does affirmative action/diversity account for this?

disclaimer: ok, so offering a counterpoint doesn't necessarily help the asker find the question, but I'm similarly interested in this issue and always willing to listen to other's POVs and explanations behind them, so perhaps i'll be allowed this question/statement. I feel like I'm in the minority being rather politically left but against affirmative action, and want to understand how others came to their conclusions.
posted by fishfucker at 9:02 PM on April 4, 2006

wow, on preview/post, great answer scarabic.
posted by fishfucker at 9:04 PM on April 4, 2006

I've lived by choice for 7 of the last 10 years in a monoculture -- South Korea. Although it's changing -- out of 48 million people total, the foreign population has tripled in the last 5 years to a whopping 740,000 or so -- one can see all the negative (and some arguably positive) manifestations of a total lack of diversity, and of anything but the weakest lip service to promoting it.

I realize your question is targetted much more specifically, but 'racism/sexism/ageism/ismism' are more upfront and unapologetic than can be believed for most people arriving here fresh off the boat, and the way in which these things manifest themselves inside workplaces are a pure reflection of the way society at large orders itself.

Which is to say, I suppose, a data point in support of what scarabic said.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:18 PM on April 4, 2006

Best answer: Saying nothing about the merit of diversity programs, to answer the OP's question there's a good, simple reason why diversification efforts aren't "racism / sexism / ageism" is that all of the latter are motivated by a distinct notion that someone is (likely to be) unqualified or inferior because of their race, sex, or age, whereas diversity efforts aren't premised upon the notion that white men are (likely to be) unqualified by virtue of that characteristic.
posted by MattD at 9:38 PM on April 4, 2006

Assuming all qualifications are equal (which is going to be really rare), you hire a non-white, non-male preferentially some of the time*, and it makes sense because you are helping to make the world right. So what if you were not the one that enslaved Africans, or kept women at home? You can be the one to help fix the damage. And it is not contestable that those things damaged people, the effects of which are still visible to this day.

It's what Jesus would do, to appeal to your church-going nature.

* The ultimate goal is a diverse work force, so the composition of your existing work force would have to come into play here.
posted by teece at 9:40 PM on April 4, 2006

Of course, there's also the distinction between something that's racist and something that's discriminatory. It could be argued that it's discriminatory, but not racist.

I realize there may be a statistical argument that says "well, people of this skin color or that sex are X% disadvantaged, so we'll hire/accept them", but when you get to the point where you're qualified for a job/school, how likely is it that you *were* disadvantaged?

Well, I would imagine that could be measured by different salaries for people of different races, no?
posted by delmoi at 9:59 PM on April 4, 2006

Huh, I just realized I'm the only non-white person in my entire company.
posted by delmoi at 10:03 PM on April 4, 2006

Huh, I just realized I'm the only non-white person in my entire company.

And I'm (almost) the only caucasian at mine.

Observations that do absolutely nothing to help the thread poster. AskMe is not supposed to be for idle chat, right?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:26 PM on April 4, 2006

I have difficulty seeing how one's skin color in and of itself would indicate a unique background and viewpoint -- that assumes that all people who are of a particular ethnicity share some culture, merely by heritage

Spoken like a true white man. I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to just wind you up. I'm just saying: I can't see you, I have never seen you, I have no idea what you really look like, but I am now positive that you are a white male, probably in North America.

It's a fair question. Civil rights leaders argued forever and a day that race was only skin deep. Why give it any special consideration?

The thing is, FFF, that it's not about your cultural perspective or origin, it's about your place in society. The color of your skin DOES affect that, because it's part of how you're perceived, and it locates you in the webwork of intercultural hierarchies that make up the pecking order wherever you are.

It's great to want to be color-blind, but don't try that approach at the expense of recognizing genuine realities about the role of race in socio-economic dynamics. You, perhaps, are in fact an enlightened white male who is truly color blind. If so, you are in scarce company, amongst white males or anyobody else for that matter. It's not a color blind world.
posted by scarabic at 10:26 PM on April 4, 2006

Shit, brainfart, I thought I was talking to FiveFreshFish. I am actually pretty sure that FishFucker is in fact a white guy in CA.
posted by scarabic at 10:32 PM on April 4, 2006

This is so, so very sad. I had written a long-ish, non-ranting piece in sincere defense of the truly confused, truly color-blind white man.

Then I realized that nobody here would ever believe me.

How does this make any sense?

It doesn't. I mean, I'd like to help out all the minorities in the world, but there are no plantation owners in my family. I'd give you a few bucks, but some British soldier stole my grandfather's wallet after beating the shit out of him in Dublin. So I have to work for a living like every other schmuck out there.

Just try to do your best. You know you're doing it right.
posted by frogan at 11:03 PM on April 4, 2006

Here's a quick brainteaser that's adapted from Derrick Bell:

Suppose some madman postal worker broke into company X and killed every single non-white and non-male employee so that all remaining employees were white men. In order to full the vacancies created, the company would have to hire new applicants. If the company was 65% white men before, then conceivably the same hiring practices would lead to 65% of the open spots being white men, which would give you 88% white men after the rehiring process. Any attempt to replace the missing women or missing non-whites through hiring practices that favored these groups would necessarily be an affirmative step towards diversity, even if it only led back to that original 65% number.

The hypothetical is a little heavy-handed, but centuries of racism, sexism, and other social ills have left many corporations with employees that do not match the communities they represent (as scarabric put it), a situation not as dissimilar to the postal worker as we'd like to think.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:39 PM on April 4, 2006

The typo monster strikes again, replacing my perfect grammer with strange and unknown keystrokes.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:39 PM on April 4, 2006

and for the encore, I will misspell grammar.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:40 PM on April 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

It doesn't. I mean, I'd like to help out all the minorities in the world, but there are no plantation owners in my family. I'd give you a few bucks, but some British soldier stole my grandfather's wallet after beating the shit out of him in Dublin. So I have to work for a living like every other schmuck out there.

Right. I feel you. But every day you live as a white person in this country, you benefit from centuries of systematized discrimination. When you enter a store, no one follows you around. When you go to the bank for a loan, you have a reasonably good chance of receiving it. When you go apartment-hunting, you have no reason to think that your real estate agent isn't telling you about certain deals. When applying for a job, you can assume that your resume will be given its full weight. If a hurricane hit your city, you could be reasonably sure that government help would come quickly and in great numbers.

Every schmuck in this country has to work for a living. But some schmucks--specifically the ones with darker skin--have to work even harder. Regardless of whether or not your parents or grandparents owned slaves, you benefit even today from the system that allowed slave-owning in the first place, in the same way that darker-skinned Americans continue to face discrimination and oppression. Ask yourself this: would you willingly trade places with an African-American male in this country?
posted by maxreax at 12:01 AM on April 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

I firmly believe that Affirmative Action is now doing more damage than good. It was probably necessary in the early years, to demonstrate that black people were just as capable as whites.

At this point, however, Affirmative Action merely reinforces that differentiation based on skin color is valid.

It causes racism. It doesn't cure it.
posted by Malor at 12:04 AM on April 5, 2006

Quick example of the need for diversity for pure business reasons.

A studio is shooting a couple scenes for a movie on my campus. Its about stepshows . They want to call It "Steppin'". That title is really Xtreme groupthink. (Let alone Steppin Fetchit)
posted by Rubbstone at 12:21 AM on April 5, 2006

Response by poster: Just checking it to say thanks again for the answers. I can't see MeFi of any sort from work--well, I can read, but the working proxy I've found won't let me post--so it'll be a while before I can be more specific in my gratitude. Y'all have a good day.
posted by phrits at 3:32 AM on April 5, 2006

There are actually places where white men are considered desirable for diversity. I work for a large non-profit that is about 85% women. We are constantly trying to recruit more men (of any ethnicity).
posted by kimdog at 6:59 AM on April 5, 2006

The only thing I'd add would be, keep in mind the diversity proportions of the workforce. Selecting minorities from an otherwise equal field of candidates in the name of diversity is great, so long as it doesn't create a disproportionate representation of that minority. Doing that is contrary to the stated purpose, tilting the balance the other way and fostering hatred.
posted by empyrean at 7:01 AM on April 5, 2006

Affirmative action is still needed for disabled people. The accomodations & modifications that many of them require often scare off potential employers because it's easier to employ the person that doesn't require jobs modifications.
posted by raedyn at 7:51 AM on April 5, 2006

We recently had a required EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) training session in my department, and there was some discussion of the "but isn't affirmative action just another type of hiring based on race" variety. The leader pointed out something that I think very few critics of affirmative action realize (and not many of its supporters) Ideally affirmative action begins with the search for applicants in that advertisements are made in publications read by minorities, notices are placed at meetings attended by minorities, and so on with the goal of ensuring that the pool of applicants accurately reflects the community. Affirmative action should be less about hiring policies than about recruitment methods.
posted by TedW at 7:54 AM on April 5, 2006

Best answer: but -isms are simply not a factor in my daily life or how I generally relate to people.

That's because you have the luxury of ignoring them. Most people look at you and think "person" and don't think "white person," "male person," "straight person," "middle-class person," etc. Your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is all more or less invisible because it's the default in this society.

That's not true for many other people, even people who might now have the same general advantages you do.

Saying that you yourself are not racist does not really change the fact that others from other backgrounds have different experiences than you do. The point of diversity is to bring in different viewpoints so that collectively businesses come up with better, more innovative, more responsive products and solutions and practices.

The big thing I keep reading about right now is childcare in the workplace, or at least solutions for helping working parents. I really think that as long as rich white men hire other rich white men, solutions to a lot of work/life issues won't come about because we're just keeping the status quo. But you start hiring women who might be single moms or even rich white married women who just refuse to go with the status quo, and your company's got to start working a bit to find solutions that accommodate them.

Figure the same thing if you're talking about brainstorming for new product lines or services. The wider the range of experiences of the people in the office, the more potential customers you're appealing to outside the office.

In general, they've found that people tend to hire others they "feel comfortable with" or "can see taking over their jobs one day." If that's a white straight guy doing the hiring, and all the people working around him are straight white guys, his general image of who's gonna have his job one day is probably... a white straight guy. And even if you're a minority or a woman doing the hiring, you're most likely still surrounded by straight white guys, and so you may still see the straight white guy as the one who best "fits." Pushing for diversity helps call into question those assumptions.
posted by occhiblu at 8:47 AM on April 5, 2006

I think part of my frustration is that there are definitely far too many times when it does come down to promoting the underqualified minority.

Sure, and anyone who tells you it doesn't happen is full of crap. I won't tell you that there aren't some people who lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt, either. But in both cases the average is much more mundane and looked at as a gestalt its a toss-up.

In those rare cases when the 'inferior' candidate (who looked at by themselves is, usually, a perfectly fine candidate) goes over someone 'better' it's usually because of a combination of what's good for the larger corporate/organizational entity and because of the number of times the coin fell the other way in the past.

Case in point: I just the other day was told of how an acquaintance's daughter was passed over for a slot in the theater department at BU. Another girl in her class who had a SAT and GPA score lower than her own but, shall we say, darker skin, got in. This seems unfair from a pure academic achievement standpoint, but if you trying to put on a student production of Rent you might find it a challenge if every single person in your pool was blonde, white and blue-eyed. Less obvious is how a corporation might find itself if its culture and workforce were completely homogenized, but no less true.

There's also an issue of qualifications and scores and the degree to which they're culturally biased. This might be less pertinent to you in the workforce but I'd bet you see it at least a little. In education it's much more quantifiable. When I worked in the Florida higher education system in the early 90s we had to contend with a State-mandated achievement test that students had to pass to move on to years 3 & beyond.

Contentions that the test penalized immigrant students were greeted with skepticism, until it was shown conclusively that similarly-achieving students of hispanic heritage got consistently lower scores on the exam than anglo students. If that test had been anything other than a pass/fail to move on to upper level work you might have been inclined to think that "less qualified" students were bypassing smarter white students.

Beyond all that and barring strict quotas (which are rare), it's simply not possible in a modern workforce to fill the ranks with unqualified people. Lifetime employment is ancient history and the common practice of layoffs allows any corporation to trim unproductive fat if it so chooses. I've yet to see a company where the unqualified boobs were there for long periods of time because of the color of their skin; it's always a combination of personal connections and aptitude at doing squat.
posted by phearlez at 9:16 AM on April 5, 2006

Wow, could someone hire me a culturally diverse editor or proofreader?

This seems unfair from a pure academic achievement standpoint, but if you were trying to put on a student production of Rent you might find it a challenge if every single person in your pool was blonde, white and blue-eyed. Less obvious is how a corporation might find itself at an economic disadvantage if its culture and workforce were completely homogenized, but as a hindrance to success it is no less true.
posted by phearlez at 9:19 AM on April 5, 2006

Best answer: There's also the fact that plenty of unqualified or lower-qualified white dudes get hired all the time. Due to family connections, wealth, friends in high places, etc. -- but most of us consider that "business as usual." Affirmative action or diversity measures are really just trying to give other groups that same leg up that white men are, for the most part, born with.
posted by occhiblu at 9:54 AM on April 5, 2006

There's also the fact that plenty of unqualified or lower-qualified white dudes get hired elected all the time. Due to family connections, wealth, friends in high places, etc.
posted by scarabic at 10:04 AM on April 5, 2006

Less obvious is how a corporation might find itself at an economic disadvantage if its culture and workforce were completely homogenized

I work at a diverse workplace in a very competitive sector of the economy. We survive on the strength of our ideas and the quality of our work. Having lots of different people with lots of different cultural upbringings does create a more rich "ecosystem" of ideas from which the best survive. I don't want to make a direct analogy to evolution, but the more viewpoints, perspectives, and different assumptions you have, the more you have to work with. We're also able to cover one another's blind spots better, since we all have different ones. It's a noisy, contentious office where not everyone is a native english speaker, but we spend very little time acting on the biases of any dominant culture (since we don't have one) and all of our time tackling problems, nominating solutions, testing results. Results speak for themselves - and only results matter. This makes it more of a meritocracy, which means that the truly smarter people are the ones who will rise in the organization. That is a huge advantage over some company with an good-old-boy network of nepotistic promotions, where all the decisions are top-down edicts from people who think alike, and where everyone else is afraid to speak their mind.
posted by scarabic at 10:09 AM on April 5, 2006

I am actually pretty sure that FishFucker is in fact a white guy in CA.

well, scarabic, that's the crux of my argument. i'm only half-white, but culturally, I'm indistinguishable from the predominant american culture.

Many years ago I could have easily checked off the box on my school application and supposedly, *supposedly*, got preferential treatment in admissions (i didn't, because 1) i didn't think it was fair, and 2) because it didn't properly describe my ethnicity -- there wasn't a "mulatto" or "hapa" or "multiracial" box) despite the fact that I came from an advantaged/priveleged background.

My difficulty with diversity/affirmative action is that *IF* it's meant to help those who are disadvantaged (defined here as poor), then skin color or sex is a poor metric to judge it on, and family income is a much better and fairer metric (for admissions -- i've never given a lot of thought to diversity in the workplace, but I suppose i should).

Now, perhaps you might argue I've been defining disadvanted improperly as poor and that really, being a particular skin culture or sex will surely disadvantage you more than say, how much your parents made and what school district you lived in when you were a kid. Still, it seems to me, again, that two poor people have more in common, then two middle-class people who have different skin colors -- BECAUSE of my personal experiences as being a middle-class person with a different skin color and being treated, well, as a white guy in CA.

i think a diverse workplace is laudable, but as long as it's an easy sort of "hey, this represents a pretty decent cross-section of who applied here and we've got all sorts of different types of folks with different ideas, ways of doing things, and attitudes", and not a "holy crap we need two more women and a black guy stat". that's why I liked your answer, because it implied that it actually occurs as the former, and that the latter is just something I made up or somehow got impressed upon me.
posted by fishfucker at 11:03 AM on April 5, 2006

I just love the fact that you want more "chicks" in your workplace.

Why not start a drive to recruit more "coons", "spicks" and "slopes" as well?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 1:23 PM on April 5, 2006

But seriously? I don't think this question is really being asked in good faith.

You appear to be asking "what's the philosophical basis for this practice?" but then you hit us with:

I think part of my frustration is that there are definitely far too many times when it does come down to promoting the underqualified minority.

You state unequivocally that diversity in hiring is unfair and promotes unqualified people.

You go on to say:

a female boss of mine who had turned down an offer of promotion because it was made to the most qualified woman in the running.

Which I had to read twice before I understood it. Why wouldn't they offer a job to the most qualified woman?

Oh, I get it. The job was offerered to the most qualified woman, and we're supposed to take it as read that you mean "over more qualified men". You don't say that, but I guess the most qualified woman couldn't possibly have been as qualified as the most qualified man.

You either understand the principle or you don't. You can agree or disagree with it or not, and it's been explained to you in the very first post what that principle is.

But you've got stories of the principle being applied very badly in practice and you want to list those and get confirmation for your resentment.

If you've worked in a workplace where they promote people in any stupid unfair way: because they're the boss' son, because they're pretty, because they're black, because they're a cool guy who always buys a round of drinks, then yes, you've got reason to be resentful. And if you've been told you're "not diverse" then you're in a workplace where people don't even use the english language properly.

But that's nothing to do with the principle, which you appear to understand.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 1:37 PM on April 5, 2006

I just love the fact that you want more "chicks" in your workplace.

Why not start a drive to recruit more "coons", "spicks" and "slopes" as well?

When you seriously equate the term 'chicks' with 'coons' you're contributing to the perception problem that diversity programs have.
posted by phearlez at 2:32 PM on April 5, 2006

They don't have to be "equal", whatever that means, for my point to be valid. They're demeaning terms and I think it's very interesting that phrits spends all that time telling us how liberal and unprejudiced he is and then refers to women as "chicks". Perhaps he's not as liberal as he thinks. And perhaps that kind of casual use of sexist language is why the average IT workplace doesn't have many women.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 2:53 PM on April 5, 2006

Response by poster: AmbroseChapel: as scarabic said

Keep on asking and looking outside the mainstream rhetoric about this issue. It's so easy to mischaracterize and politicize and turn into a great big ball of shit.

and I think you've made his point. As for the term "chick" it was used mostly tongue-in-cheek and parroted the previous comment, but if you were offended I apologize because it was definitely not my intent.

You said

You state unequivocally that diversity in hiring is unfair and promotes unqualified people.

and I must take issue with that. What I said was "far too many times" not "always" or anything of the sort. I think you're reading far more frustration into that than was expressed in context—are not all conscious questions asked to satisfy some level of frustration?—but at the very least, there is much room for equivocation. "Resentful" might apply if I'd been personally affected, but I haven't.

The question was asked in good faith and is a genuine attempt to apply *some* sort of logic to one facet of what is (and I knew to be) a very complex set of issues. "Hire a person and consider skin color" is never a neutral statement, and I was trying to get my head around some justification for why it's *ever* justifiable.

To clarify about that boss, yes, she was as much as told that she was less qualified than one or more other candidates, and I stand by my admiration of her principles in declining.

As you and others have pointed out, unfair hiring or promotion happens for many reasons, and I have to admit I hadn't considered diversity programs as one potential evil among many obvious ones. n wrongs don't make a right, but it does reduce race/creed/gender-based hiring to but one tree in the forest.

MattD (on the underlying premises of discrimination vs. promoting diversity): Succintly put, and a damned good answer. In a perfect world, it would even work that way. Oh well. Thank you.

AC again. I very much agree I'm working in a place where they don't use the English language properly. I expect we all are. Seriously, no offense was intended, and I thank you for your response.

Anyway, I'm done. I wasn't trying to start a flame war, and my question has been answered. The answers certainly raised a few more as well, but I'll knock 'em around in my own head for a while before causing more trouble.

On preview: The term "chick" is one I do use—although not usually among strangers and never in a professional setting—and it's one of those words I picked up from my ex- many years ago when we were first together. That may not make it any less "demeaning" to someone who is offended by it, but it doesn't carry anywhere near the amount of malice the other examples given do.

posted by phrits at 3:07 PM on April 5, 2006

I think of "chicks" kinda like "queer" - I use it with other women and mostly think of it as a comfortable term, but if I come across it in certain contexts it can still make me cringe a little. It didn't on askme because i have certain assumptions about the members here, but I don't know if they're warranted (which is to say, using "chicks" demeaningly seems really old-fashioned)
posted by mdn at 3:46 PM on April 5, 2006

*IF* it's meant to help those who are disadvantaged (defined here as poor

Yeah, you're right, and I think that's actually a second, separate issue. Your emphasis on "if" is noteworthy.

Diversity in the workplace isn't about promoting the poor. It's about preventing discrimination. Affirmative action is about promoting the disadvantaged, and it does equate racial minority status with socio-economic disadvantage. That's what people hate about AA :that equation isn't always valid.

But Diversity is a more modest goal, one not aimed at righting the wrongs of history. It's very much about just making sure that what goes on today is not discriminatory.

Remember, having a rainbow-colored workplace isn't the goal. Diversity doesn't mean as many non-whites as possible, and a gay eskimo if you can get one, please.

The goal is to have a workplace that's a fair and open reflection of the community it's in, where no one is unfairly excluded. Diversity is the sign of a workplace that's open and fair and doesn't shut the door to anyone. Homogeneity is the sign that something's gone wrong, that there is a screen on the door. And that hurts the people it excludes AND (I believe) the organization.
posted by scarabic at 5:06 PM on April 5, 2006

I don't think "chicks" is any more demeaning than "dudes," but if you disagree and have a vagina, then I defer to your opinion.
posted by scarabic at 5:07 PM on April 5, 2006

(to clarify, I agree, I think of chicks as the female equivalent to dudes, but still in a certain context - with other people in my generation or younger, or in liberal cities, etc... same as queer seems like a normal term to refer to the LGBT community, in a context of people friendly to the community - I can imagine contexts in which using chick or queer would refer back to old uses of the term, which were once demeaning - queer more so, but 'chick' was dismissive)
posted by mdn at 5:23 PM on April 5, 2006