"The Wisdom of Crowds" and all that...

We don't have an explicit Affirmative Action program in the UK, right?

But last time I went to the job center, there were a load of jobs held back conditionally. I can't remember the name of the scheme (New Deal?). Some of the conditions were around age, some, around physical capability. Jobs for ex cons too, by they aren't overtly advertised.

I can only think of one person I know, who found a job through such a program. More if you factor in prison release. The ex con group would make for a fascinating study (which I'm sure already exists). Society is failing them woefully.

Nowadays, 'neurodiversity' is also a growing concern, but I don't know if it's ratified by some government initiative.

I'd say one thing... It's natural to look negatively on a programs like these, if you yourself can't find a job. No matter who the beneficiaries are. But these programs absolutely should exist. I bet they pay their way too.

Yeah, I’ve hired quite a few people in my life, it’s been exceedingly rare for me to have one candidate who is clearly better for the role than any other. More often than not I’m getting down to two or three candidates, any of whom I think would be great for the role, at which point it starts getting down to fine margins. I see no reason why increasing the diversity of the team couldn’t or shouldn’t be one of the differentiators.

Yossarian wrote:

davyK wrote:

But, as has been pointed out by Funk; isn't race and gender the point of the appointment? To fill in the blind spots of the group as a whole? It's not just about the individual qualifying, it's about the supreme court functioning as a whole?

So what about disability then? What about LGBTQ+ Youth? The old? What about vegans? Why pick colour and sex?

Disability is good, yep, and being LGBTQ+, definitely worth getting them involved (although considering the age profile of Justices, it would be odd if none are suffering from an age-related disability). They’ve got age covered, veganism is a choice, not a characteristic. Anything else?

I don't think you get my point. Should there not be a requirement for all those groups if you are forcing the black female requirement?

GooberTheHat wrote:

Davy, do you agree that it's an issue that no black woman has ever been appointed to the supreme court? If you don't, why not? If it is because it should be based on merit, how does that square with the article yoss posted.

It's an issue. Of course it is. But I have issue with the fix of pre-selection. It's hard to fix and it's not only black females that are under represented. As I alluded to earlier, Ivy League WASPs have no valid insight on practically everyone else in US society.

Funkstain wrote:

I simply do not believe that it's that easy to differentiate ability in such an objective manner. OK if you're hiring some random inexperienced person , over a clearly more experienced and capable possibility, simply due to affirmative action - fair enough. But generally, how many of us do jobs that you can't get better at, can't learn from, and how many times does this kind of affirmative action actually negatively impact the person who didn't get the job?

 

Another one of those arguments that exist in my own head, and not on Twitter, is the fact that Affirmative Action kind of channels and canonises a level of speculation that an organisation would eventually have to apply to the hiring process. 

Every company gambles on every hire anyway.

Lord_Griff wrote:

I think I could do surgery.

I hear that, but the med student from Leeds, is probably just as capable as the one from Oxbridge, right?
And once they are both in the role, if either of them ends up killing someone in a routine endoscopy, they're both going to be in some danger of losing their job.

What might actually be more unfair, is the chance of the Oxbridge student losing their job, before the student from Leeds, on the same record. But if the surgeon from Leeds macks out with a 95%+ success rate, then that benefits everyone. And I'm sure the Oxbridge surgeon is in no danger of unemployment as a result either.

Further to that, you're also looking at this specific example for a highly skilled, chartered role.

How about focussing that lens on two Oxbridge candidates.
They shouldn't all be coming from private schools.

The real fix, is to ensure the state schools have the same standards as the private ones.
Then a real conversation about meritocracy can take place.

Yossarian wrote:

It’s not a requirement, it’s a choice being made by the people doing the hiring this time around. Hopefully other choices will be made when other opportunities arise.

I really don't get your point.

I understand this conversation was prompted by a proposed selection of a black female onto a panel. But why choose that? Building in a preference for one group discriminates against all other minority groups and not just the old school Ivy League WASPs.

hunk wrote:

Suggestions Davy? Let's hear it. Not being condescending, I'm curious to ideas of possible solutions.

Systemic change is required. It's far better that the selection committee be deliberately made up of different sections. Force the change there and the outcome will change and it will be fair.

I could be accused of making a circular argument here. e.g. Who selects the selectors? But if the people choosing people are a group that reflects society then it should ensure selection based on merit and naturally reflect societal makeup.

Diluted Dante wrote:

I think it bears repeating from that article:

Let’s remember: 115 people have been appointed to the court in its 232-year existence – seven have not been white men. Seven.

I understand where Davy’s coming from, looking at positive discrimination generally. As a concept. But looking at the US Supreme Court specifically? They need a black point of view ASAP. And they need a woman’s perspective ASAP. Those needs are urgent, given the prevalent national mood and problems. (But I also think trying to tick both boxes with a single hire is … worrying. Makes it look even more like tokenism instead of positive action.)

Yossarian wrote:

Letting things continue as they are will surely continue to build resentment in those unrepresented groups, no? While continuing to be a visible glass ceiling which may prevent people from those unrepresented groups feeling like they can achieve these roles in their lives, which could then potentially make it harder to fix this in the future if the next generation of kids from these groups have internalised, at a very young age, that roles such as this are not for them.

Yossarian wrote:

Letting things continue as they are will surely continue to build resentment in those unrepresented groups, no? While continuing to be a visible glass ceiling which may prevent people from those unrepresented groups feeling like they can achieve these roles in their lives, which could then potentially make it harder to fix this in the future if the next generation of kids from these groups have internalised, at a very young age, that roles such as this are not for them.

Yep.  I agree strongly that role models are a force for change. I see the attractions of forcing an appointment and but I see the downside too.

But why not set up a representative group who appoints instead?  A more drastic tactic would be to clear the lot out and reselect instead of changing just one.

Also, I’d be down for clearing the SC and starting from scratch, but the chances of that not falling foul of senate filibuster rules or getting a decent chunk of republican senators to support it are practically zero.

I said that +ve discrimination doesn't work and have cited a large scale example of it. The police in NI had it in place for years and it didn't work. It looked good to start with but it decayed because of systemic and cultural problems.

It's a pity but there it is.

shrug.

America in particular is a broken nation. It has the race fault line running through it. The hangover of slavery is a wound that won't heal and probably rightly too. That cunt Trump used it for advancement and opened it up again. It's going to take more than some appointments to fix that. Picking a President who isn't a cunt and who isn't checking his pension fund would be a start.  The Democrats need to get their act together too.

It's wood for trees stuff leading to circular arguments as usual.

"positive discrimination is bad because tokenism and undermining candidate"

In many cases this is true, and affirmative action on larger scales has other problems too, but in this specific case, objections based on capability and experience are not valid; it's a different sort of interference due to the way Supreme Court justices are appointed; it is powerful statement of intent which shows that the old ways of selection which led invariably to white people and overwhelmingly male won't be adhered to; of and by itself adding this diverse voice to the court will improve the court and can validly form part of the selection process as a result

"but why not other minorities then"

yes indeed, hopefully next time

"what is really needed is systematic, structural, generational change then we wouldn't need to worry about affirmative action because everyone would have more equal opportunity and Supreme Court would become naturally representative"

That's obviously true but is separate from the question at hand. It doesn't have to be EITHER appoint per selection OR change society for the better. Indeed perhaps this greater representation opportunity can help change society for the better. Also from a realistic stand point, taking into account humans and their evolved behaviour and mindsets, even WITH better opportunities I still don't see a representative Supreme Court just popping into existence without "meddling"

So we go around

so that would be arguments no. 1 and no. 3

But it does work Davy, at least sometimes. There are examples all around you. Better representation and more diversity on all sorts of mainstream media outlets from blockbuster films to daily soaps via news and current affairs and cultural shows.

You think they got there using the standard old "best experience / best CV" for the job?

davyK wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I’d suggest that writing off positive discrimination as a whole due to one example of it failing to work is short-sighted.

I cited one. There are others. If it worked do you not think it would be evident by now?

This is one tool which may help to fix a deep-seated, centuries-old, systemic issue, not a magic bullet that will end racism.