/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12725881
I've been saying this since I was a child. it's incredibly condescending. When you demand the government to adopt affirmative action (and similar "inclusive" policies) the tacit implication is that you are acknowledging blacks as inferior, and unable to compete successfully without outside intervention. It's also incredibly unfair. It’s unfair to the qualified workers who end up with less competent coworkers. It’s unfair to the employers who are compelled to hire less competent candidates. It’s unfair to other applicants when there is a limited number of available positions, and someone with worse qualifications got hired solely based on their race. It's unfair to someone of a "disadvantaged" group who achieved a position on their own merit and effort when someone who is less qualified gets the same position because their skin is the same color. It is also de facto racism.

An alternative, and more elegant solution would be to leave race out of the hiring/selection process. Keep it anonymous, names are replaced with numbers, interviewing could be done behind a screen or something. If you still end up with a mostly homogenous group, maybe there’s other factors to consider, and we should investigate it without hand-waving and crying "systemic racism".

It turns out some people have argued that anonymous hiring practices are still racist, because if hired on merit alone, blacks (and other "disadvantaged" groups) will be hired less often. An argument like this can only be interpreted as an admission of black inferiority. Furthermore, it fails to explain how other disadvantaged groups (first generation Asian migrants, for example) manage to thrive in the face of similar circumstances.