Yeah, I’m not so sure about that either. I think Whites can be helped by diversity.

Otherwise the policy generally is that in the case of equal merits the underrepresented person gets the job.

I think that is the system in the UK too.

AA is harmful to whites inasmuch it ‘diversifies’ for the sake of diversity.

How is that harmful?

–IP

of course, you could also make a special effort at recruitment, either through advertising or through the grapevine, to let it be known that your current/next search will be interested in widening its scope or in getting more minority applicants. or advertise in places you hadn’t thought to list before. blah blah.

Wouldn’t it be better doing the opposite? So that the students get access to a wider range of cultural codes and are more aware of how other people work.

I’d also like to add that the way AA works in the US sounds very foreign to me. In Sweden, if for example a workplace has an overrepresentation (more than 40-60) of a certain sex, they might decide to actively search only for an employee of the underrepresented sex. Otherwise the policy generally is that in the case of equal merits the underrepresented person gets the job.

Still, we have a very segregated workforce in Sweden and could certainly do a lot more.

Congratulations, you just wiped out 100 years of left-wing thought on labor economics in one sentence. I’ll put your name down on the “More Globalization Now!” petitions. ;)

AA isn’t unfair to whites, since having to compete against a larger and more diverse pool of qualified applicants is certainly fair.

AA arguably (and I certainly agree) benefits whites by leading to a more humane society (which benefits everyone).

The question of role models is important, but I personally would be hesistant to use that until the actual interview process.. I think I would be looking for someone who is willing to actively work with students of color, but I am a little hesistant to consider that until after the person comes to campus. I think it is more likely that a person of color would work with students of color, but I think it would still need to be considered on a case by case basis.

That said, I do think there are times where race is one aspect of a person’s qualification. I think about the example of me hiring someone to do interviews about interracial marriage. I think, for methodological reasons, I would like to race/gender match interviewers in many cases. Another example, I can’t imagine that having a male sexual assault nurse would be wise. I think there are rare occasions where gender and race should be considered as factors that qualify people to move up in the applicant pool.

The bottom line of company X has nothing to do with the welfare of white people as a whole.”

I agree that it is partly about PR, but it is also about the bottom line in other ways. One of the things companies realized is that diversifying their workers also helped them create more targeted and niche markets. Having a broader and more diverse group of workers actually makes the company function better because they are utilizing the talents of everybody, and not just the White guy buddies of the boss. Remember the famous Saturn campaign directed at women car buyers; I think cases like were rare before affirmative action.

I also get the sense that White business owners don’t want to see a world where people of color rule their industries. I would say they think bottom line first, welfare of similarly situated people second, and the welfare of people of color is would actually be way down there on the list.

Yeah, in some ways that’s part of the point I am making. At this point in time, it is relatively weak and getting weaker. What is also disturbing to me is the Bush administrations complete and utter unwillingness to enforce Civil Rights and discrimination law suits.

Rachel said “There have never been laws passed or executive orders issued requiring any type of affirmative action in hiring or promotions for private companies. The reason big businesses want affirmative action is because they benefit tremendously from a diverse workforce, and the impression (often false impression, but image counts) that they do not discriminate. If affirmative action was harmful to Whites, why would White business owners institute affirmative action policies on a voluntary basis?”

Well, as a sociologist, Rachel should know that the racial status of these business owners is inconsequential in relation to their decision to practice or not practice AA in hiring.

The reason why these business owners would be interested in AA is directly related to PROFIT of their business (es).

As Rachel said, there are no laws requiring AA in the Private Sector.

Private sector business owners (white or otherwise) would only be interested in AA if such an action would give them more business through good PR and in turn increase the dividends reaped by the shareholders in their company.

The bottom line of company X has nothing to do with the welfare of white people as a whole.

AA is harmful to whites inasmuch it ‘diversifies’ for the sake of diversity.

Other than the issue of the impact of AA on whites; I think that Rachel did an excellent (superb) job of explaining the process of AA in hiring faculty at a university. I appreciate that.

On some level I agree with you. Diversity is good for business, and good for the bottom line, but I don’t feel low income Whites folks are hurt more than low income Black and Brown folks.

Because the white business owners aren’t the ones who would be harmed. As you say; they get the benefit of the policy (diverse workforce, for what that’s worth, and the public percpetion of gee-what-nice-guys). It’s other white people who would pay the price, whatever that price is.

I personally have no objection to affirmative action in the workplace. It’s in admissions where it has no place, and is counterproductive and indeed destructive to minority ambitions and achievement.