Also, read the studies. Black people and women actually have a harder time getting a job. So by your logic, of people getting jobs that they may not be the most qualified for, you'd be better off hiring women or black people. They have to be more qualified into to be seen as equals.

The specific situation that is burned in my mind was a black girl who was in a math PhD program at the same time that I was. The department wound up bending their rules to the breaking point to give her a Masters on her way out because nobody wanted to risk the discrimination lawsuit that she was threatening. Her actual math knowledge was not even to the level that I would expect from a BSc in math.

I have never witnessed anything involving a white person that was anywhere near being similarly egregious. And I had experiences with that department which demonstrated in spades that white people were not given anywhere near as much leniency.

As for your final point, I thought I pretty much said that. I've not seen the specific studies that you're referring to.

The US military addressed this exact problem by making extra resources available to black recruits who were interested in becoming officers to assist them in performing to the exact same standards that were required of whites. The result? They managed to achieve their diversity goals among officers. And the expectations that you should reasonably have of an officer do not depend on race.

I like the approach that the US military took to affirmative action. By contrast I object to the way that our educational establishment routinely makes much better resources available to help white students achieve in one set of schools, while shoving black students through grades regardless of achievement in a different set of schools. Which then lets us all cry about the horrible discrimination when employers fail to treat high school diplomas equally for white and black kids.

I wasn't saying it was justified, I was saying it was a problem. One that doesn't exist if there was no discrimination.

Racial Discrimination is racial discrimination, there is no such thing as 'well justified' racial discrimination. Saying that "Well I know that Blacks' go through school easier so their degree means less" is no better than "They are black, I don't like them". It just helps people sleep better at night to think they have a 'good reason' for being racist.

But have you made the argument that people who believe that are WRONG?

This is not a question of opinion. This is a question of fact. For instance http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/nhsc_highschoolliterac... quotes the figure Only 16% of Black high school seniors and 20% of Hispanic high school seniors scored at or above proficient on the 2005 NAEP reading test, compared to 43% of Caucasian students (NCES, 2007).

Now what do you propose that we should do about it?

Asians (Chinese and Japanese Americans were severely discriminated against in the US --to the point it was illegal for them to own property in some states (till '46). Yet, in a few decades, they were able to overcome the discrimination and even best whites as a whole.

Much of that appears to me culture based, not even ethnicity based. Now, not all Asians do well and have the same aptitude toward education and sacrifice. Compare East Asians with SouthEast Asians with Island Asians. Still, from my exposure, there is a large percentage whose parents inculcate learning and education and sacrifice (ex. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother as modern example). On the other hand look at Appalachian whites. Education is made fun of and they are some of the poorest people in America.

Essentially, make education and learning something held dear and worthwhile. Many other white kinds I went to school with were apathetic towards education (these guys are now laying carpets and driving trucks and so on). It's totally different mindset comapred to say, ABCs. They might not "like" school, but they know it's a means to and end rather than an obstacle to having fun.

But the problem lies in getting them to do so. And if they do so, getting the rest of the country to realize that they have done so.

When I asked what should be done about it, I was being deliberately unfair. It is obvious to me that many well-meaning efforts to resolve the problems are backfiring. But I have no clue how to actually solve the problem.

For instance if you give kids credentials without requiring achievement, then people rationally will discount those credentials. But sufficient resources to allow kids to legitimately achieve to the same level are hard to come by. Particularly considering the fact that parents of affluent ethnic groups are generally willing to devote a lot of effort making sure that their children have all of the resources that they need.

However the one thing that I am sure does not work is to try to pretend that the problem does not exist, and to try to make it anathema for anyone to fail to step in line. And, unfortunately, that seems to be the most popular "solution" that we have.

Finland and Singapore are small and so their successes might now translate perfectly for a large, diverse nation. Yet, they might still have some lessons for us to learn.

One of the largest problems, in my view, might just be inertia. There are lots of people with large political capital tied up in the current system and are not willing to give it up despite this hurting chances of progress for the people they are trying to help.

Why can't we admit the problem exists and work to reverse it. i.e give discriminated against minorities a chance where we otherwise wouldn't. It's not about 'fairness' it is about ending discrimination.

The privileged class love to discuss what works and what doesn't as an excuse not to do anything: The problem is so complex what can I do? Maybe nothing is the best thing to do!

Anyhow, yes we know a problem exists. I think the main problem is not so much discrimination (it's a problem, but not the bigger/basic problem) as having equal access to education (from society and from the parents -i.e. it's not just up to teachers to teach).

Without a good education, anti-discrimination will only allow you equal opportunity at shitty jobs) The second issue is just having fewer children allows parents to plow more money and attention into the fewer children they have. I think some of the fruit of fewer children is being seen by black parents as compared to latin american parents (who tend to have larger families) this despite latin families not being subject to the same discrimination in the US.

Re discussion. Pick any topic --this is what happens here. It's hardly surprising nor is it only seen in these discussions.

That's why those people who believe that are wrong.

The "past discrimination" was mass abductions from their countries, SLAVERY, Jim Crow laws, lynching, segregation, fewer rights and a hugely disproportionate percentage of the black population in prison.

The "reverse discrimination" is ...getting some more jobs or better grades.

Suddenly when it's for the benefit of the other side this 1/1000 less discrimination is "dangerous"?

I think white america can shut up and take it.

And how often are people hiring purely by the program of study? Can you affirmative action your way into top honors or great job experience? For the latter, it appears it's the opposite.

In the specific case that I'm thinking of, thanks to affirmative action she had academic honors until, but not including grad school. (She did get a masters though.)

I've encountered some black people in the work place who I suspect were continuing to coast on affirmative action and willingness to accuse others of discrimination. They are a clear minority of the blacks that I've worked with. Furthermore I've never seen any of that minority manage to get good referrals from anyone I'd be interested in working with.

That said, there are some dysfunctional organizations out there where managers can find it easier to promote their problem employees to be someone else's problem than they do to fire them. Someone whose success was entirely dependent on affirmative action might do well in such an organization. My last experience with such an organization was fairly brief and was about 15 years ago. (I reached the point where I had to decide between finding a better job or filing a sexual harassment lawsuit against the man I was reporting to. Yes, that happens to men as well. I chose finding a better job.)

Update: I should clarify that my opinions about the relative competency of people in that program came from knowing them for several years, and from being in classes together.

Well, there's Elizabeth Warren...

That's one of the better arguments against "affirmative action". Competent minorities and women are naturally lumped in with people working the system and pay the price in terms of reputation.

Yes. It's called "the right thing to do", not "the easy and convenient thing to do", and for a reason.

Discriminating by race is convenient, but it puts a number of people in a dead end through no fault of their own. Had everyone done the convenient thing to do, those people would be locked out forever. For employers it's a matter convenience, for recruits it's a matter of having or not having a life. The impact is disproportionate.

According to you a couple black people got farther than they should have because of affirmative action and because of that you wouldn't blame an employer for considering all black people "risky" hires. Doesn't that sound a bit ridiculous? Put another way, has anyone ever said "a couple white people screwed over the team a few years back so we think twice nowadays before hiring white people". Or "we found that guys seem to slack more during work hours and now we shy away from hiring men". Of course not, because white and male are normal when it comes to jobs in tech and so they enjoy the privilege of being treated as individuals. To drive the point home your bias is obvious in your comment - "you're going to naturally think 2 and 3 times before making a similar hire" - "similar" applies to black or female because it's understandable to aggregate those individuals, their actions easy fit into a narrative that already exists in your mind. Pick two white men at your work who consistently perform poorly and I don't think you would be as comfortable attributing their behavior to their race or gender.

Also did you read the final paragraph?

That said, I am sympathetic to the position that employers tend to unfairly overestimate that risk. And furthermore US law is very clear that discriminating against women based on that risk is illegal. (But, laws notwithstanding, I've seen it happen in practice. Both directly in my workplace, and indirectly in my wife's.)

I've seen employers tell my ex- that they were looking for someone to commit to multiple years, not just be fly-by-night. She agreed, and was laid off two months later due to 'change in business direction'.

It's the flip side of 'at will' employment. Unless a company is willing to put it in contract, I would recommend often showing little hesitation in not being more open about your future plans than you need to be.

If a company demands/expects loyalty, can you say that you expect they'll show the same loyalty when it's not working out for them? In the vast majority of cases (and it's not even necessarily malicious), absolutely not. You'll turn up one day, have a meeting with your manager, and, if you're (very) lucky, get some form of severance.

Quid pro quo.

I bet this one has a spot in top 10 most popular last thoughts.

But... touché.

People quit their jobs, frequently, for a wide variety of reasons. Women have a potential reason that men don't have. Cry me a river.

If you ever have or ever will turn down a woman for a position regardless of her abilities and this comment is found and tracked back to you that candidate (and any previous candidate you ever turned down) would have a pretty solid case against you and your company.

That conclusion can only be drawn by people who perform simplistic keyword matching and fail to comprehend what I've actually said.

Did you notice that I've also pointed out several times that there is some evidence that companies who are more willing to hire women are likely to financially perform better? And that I've also pointed out repeatedly that discriminating on the basis of gender (either way) is illegal?

There is a pretty big gulf between saying, "Here is the standard argument for discrimination" and saying "I advocate discrimination" or even "I would personally discriminate."

Sure, I could have misread everything you've posted but imagine the lawyer for a potential failed hire reading your posts and slicing out exact paragraphs of your own wording:

> given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires

> Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly

> In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs.

> I personally have seen a couple of situations where a black person had credentials only because of affirmative action and did not deserve those credentials.

> I've also have seen multiple cases where a woman gets hired, gets pregnant, and then you lose that employee in a painful way.

> I have never witnessed anything involving a white person that was anywhere near being similarly egregious.

> white people were not given anywhere near as much leniency.

> Can you really blame an employer for leaning towards being risk adverse in this situation?

Call me full of shit. Say I'm blowing all this out of context. Whatever you want... but realize that those quotes are pretty deadly rounds of ammo to a lawyer. Don't believe me? Forward them to your HR department and see what they think.

Pondering http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html may be worthwhile.

That's one amazing piece of writing.

Women are different to men - culturally, biologically, etc et al. However any reference/inference/undertone to those differences as being 'risky' or 'negative' to business re-enforces negative stereotypes.

As the studies are showing, there's an opportunity cost to not achieving gender balance in business. That's the bottom line.

See http://www.siop.org/tip/jan11/12highhouse.aspx for arguments both ways. (The one that I just presented was the conventional view back when I was being educated about women's rights some 20 years ago.)

Sounds like we have the competitive advantage.

Then the people should make sure that such businesses are PUNISHED, and women are free to take time of for pregnancy.

The way to ruin a society is to stifle it's reproduction. As for the business risk, it should be an _assumed_ risk of all businesses if they want to operate within a society of people.