Most of the time in affirmative action hirings the minority candidate who gets the job is a qualified candidate.
Define BEST CANDIDATE. [If the qualified . . . .why is the differentiator from being able to do the job . .to being the best candidate?] Rocket River
You really have never seen two qualified candidates for the same job and haven't been able to see that one may be better than the other? I wouldn't think that would have to be explained. Managers interview qualified candidates all the time for the same position and ultimately have to decide who is better. Gary Kubiak is 'qualified' to coach the Texans. Is he the best candidate?
Is Gary really qualified? The problem is . . best candidate usually translates to 'someone like me' or 'someone I am comfortable around' The GREAT CRUMPLED SUIT THEORY. In the theory . . .a employer will take two qualified candidates. The employer percieves that One has a crumpled and wrinkled suit and the other's suit is pressed and neat. The employer says . . . I will take Mr. Pressed and Neat everytime! They both qualified. But for me Mr. Pressed and Neat is the BEST CANDIDATE! In a world where a vast majority of hiring people PERCEIVE minority status . . as that CRUMPLED SUIT and Majority Status as the Pressed and Neat Suit. The minority is at an unfair disadvantage . . . everytime. Through no fault of his/her own. Through no fault of his credentials. IN THEORY, remove the suit from the equation and equality will reign supreme. IN REALITY, people's perceptions are not so easily reigned in and changed. Why was Mike Tomlin not given a shot at the Texans job? Was he not qualified? Was he not the 'best candidate'? Or was his suit Crumpled? *shrug* Why was Kubiak given a 6th year? Was his record great? Was his decisions steller? Was his tenure full of success? Or was his suit [and hair] nice, pressed and neat? Rocket River
You are making my point. The post I responded to said this: "Most of the time in affirmative action hirings the minority candidate who gets the job is a qualified candidate." My response was - "are they always the best candidate". In other words, just because an AA hiring was qualified doesn't mean they were the best candidate for the job. Hopefully Gary Kubiak wasn't hired because he is white (I truly believe he wasn't) and Mike Tomlin wasn't hired because he is black (I also believe he wasn't).
The point I am making is . . . If Tomlin never got a shot . . . how can you say he was not the best candidate? The fact is . . in the past . . . .HISTORICALLY alot of the BEST Candidates were simply not given a shot based on minority status. NOW, when the perception is that the shoe is on the other foot . . . folx wanna act like it is a mortal sin. Until the Crumpled suit preception is completely abolished and removed from the equation . . . Af Am is necessary. As Malcolm X said . . . If you stab someone in the back with a 9 inch blade Taking it out 6 inches ain't progress!!! Only when it is completely gone will healing start. IMO, too many people wanna act like prejudice disappeared in 1964. "I know stabbed you, killed you family and took all your stuff, but that is in the past. Why can't we just move beyond it. That was months ago!!" - Criminal at trial. Rocket River
That is my point. The BEST candidate is not always hired. If a qualified person gets a job due to AA, he may NOT have been the BEST candidate. If a qualified white guy gets a job because the boss is racist he may NOT have been the BEST candidate either. In your 'crumpled suit' example, if both candidates are equally qualifed, you truly could not distinguish their work skills, people skills, education, personality or anything job related, who should get the job and why? Should the manager flip a coin?
A Coin flip would be more fair than allowing the manager's personal prejudices and preconceived notions to drive the process. Rocket River
If both candidates were the same race, or if the 'crumpled suit' guy was white and 'nice suit' guy was black, would it be O.K. for him to hire the 'nice suit' guy?
In an ideal world . . . no. But in reality . . with out AF Act. . . this happens like 1 time out of 1000 . . . so you wanna use that as a justification to keep status quo? Rocket River "Sex doesn't cause pregnancy . . . cause one person was born with out sex!!!"
the problem is that "best" is more subjective than qualified. What one person thinks is the best, another might disagree with that.
I disagree. In an ideal world (one in which there was no prejudice) it should be perfectly O.K. for an employer to hire someone who is equally qualifed becuase he looks better or dresses nicer or doesn't have crazy Facebook posts. If I were a manager and 2 possible employees were equally qualified, I would judge based on appearance or cleanliness or manners or respect. If it came right down to it and the black guy was better groomed, he'd get the job. If the white guy was better groomed, he'd get the job. The ideal world is one in which we don't have to worry about being accused of being a racist because you hire a white guy over a minority.
Even this is discriminatory 1. Subjectivity of better dressed mean. 2. what if it has nothing to do with the job? For 100% phone jobs. . . does it matter if the guy is in flip flops and socks but he has great customer service skills and resolves most of the issues? For the record, you don't have to be a racist to commit a racist act Rocket River
In an ideal world, picking an employee would be based on the employer's own impressions of the candidates for the job, impressions based on qualifications, appearance, etc., without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, and sexual orientation. That ideal world doesn't exist, and I think there are lot of folks here who can't recall just how discriminated against those of color were in the very recent past. Yes, things have improved a great deal, but discrimination remains with us and is practiced not only against those of color, but by those of color against people different from them in other ways... religion and sexual orientation being two examples. Where does it begin and where does it end? In my opinion, every effort should be made to reach a point where none of these superfluous things factor into who gets hired, who's able to buy a house or rent an apartment, who can serve in the military and who cannot. Affirmative action was needed, as anyone who remembers walking into the offices of a large corporation and seeing a sea of white faces would realize. Is it still needed? That might be a better question, and one I don't have an answer to, but the days of the "all White" business world aren't so far away in the rear view mirror, and the headlamps can still pick out discrimination of all kinds ahead... and a road still needing a lot of work.
