Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
Hoya, AA is not an unmitigated disaster (social mobility is a good thing imo), but any quota based upon an attribute not related to job performance has potential for, if not necessitating, deleterious economic effects on the employer.
By refusing to recognize any validity in its opponents' positions, you constrain the ability to negotiate a compromise.
I uh . . . just posted that as regards AA the social arguments against AA "uniformly presuppose harms that are not empirically, statistically, or logically either demonstrated or even implied," and your response is to suggest that while you agree that a hypothetical harm that you are positing is not a necessary consequence of AA, that it might be one as regards employers?
That is not a strong position in opposition to my characterizing non-legal arguments against AA as precisely what your argument is.
Let's explore that context. Your position here is that the economic impact of AA is something like this:
1. Less talented / capable minority / female person gets college degree (I disagree with these assumptions about this person).
2. That person enters job market.
3. That person, because of degree, "tricks" employer into hiring a less talented / capable person than employer would otherwise hire, or AA
coerces employer into same (I disagree with this standard narrative; see also parenthetical in the second argument below).
4. That business suffers inefficiency because of the lesser performance of the new hire (I disagree with this conclusion as to the productivity of the employee and with regard to causality).
OR
1. Less talented / capable minority person enters job market having no specific educational training (I disagree with these assumptions about this person).
2. That person, because of AA, is hired over a more qualified applicant (this is not AA; that is bad hiring; this step presupposes an
equivalently qualified person who is white and male will outperform the identically qualified minority or female employee, a position with which I disagree for numerous reasons).
3. Same as above.
And here's the thing - this is all feels and goal-oriented think tank stuff. Like so much of the racism in this country, its justifications are crystalline cathedrals to
wanting it to be one way, when it's the other way. So of course I disparage and disregard bad takes based on nothing but agitprop. They're bad, and based on nothing meaningful. Like always. Like virtually every single thing any Republican politician has ever said during my entire life.