The issue isn't one of 'fending for yourself", the issue is that the law precludes racist behaviour and that even having to 'fend for yourself' is racist and illegal.

And no, the legislative norming of the proverbial "playing field" does nothing to perpetuate prejudice. That prejudice is there to start out with. All it provides is a focal point around which putatively "legitimate" arguements based in racism can be made, after all, it now is a law, and it should be ok to discuss policy associated with a law.

But the reality is that the prejudice is there to start out with.

And as someone who has done hiring and interviewing, sorry no, the consideration of why a minorty or anyone is rejected is not any more or less problematic than simply "restraint of trade" (or whatever the negative comments charges are). The $$ you get from bringing such a charge, compared to the negative stigma that is associated with it is such that it is surprising anyone ever bothers to level such charges. In most cases, the offended party simply bites their lip and goes elsewhere. Which is precisely why Affirmative Action is necessary.

As for:

we should be past the point where we force companies to hire people based on the color of their skin.

Based on what criteria of "should"? Those running businesses today were educated at a time when

• the FHA was legally OBLIGATED to discriminate based on race
• Schools in many states were segregated or shut down rather than desegregate.
• Jim Crow laws were not just still on the books, but actively enforced.

Those in senior positions waiting to run businesses were educated at a time when

• A major candidate for the US Presidency ran on a Segregationist plank
• Jim Crow laws were on the books and enforced with water cannon and attack dogs
• racist teachers still openly treated minority and female students as lesser

so explain to me again how these two generations magically erased their upbringing?

If someone has an opinion, even once... then all bets are off. 60 years ago they were racist! Therefore, they ARE ALL racists!

Bullshit.

The world turns, and society today is nothing like society once was. You need to open your eyes and look at the world NOW.

We're in another stupid political war for no reason, but otherwise there isn't much similarity now to the 60's... You need to update your thinking.

Its more than just an opinion. Racism is an acculturization. Which means its a pattering of the brain. Sure you can intellectually learn a different approach, but because racism is a visceral emotional response, very very few are capable of changing that.

The point of the study WAS to look at the world NOW. And what it demonstrates is that in the HERE AND NOW, racism is still pervasive in hiring.

Realistically, for acculturated emotional myths to be removed from the broad society, takes 4-6 generations: The first is the one during which the revolution happens, the second is the one in whcih it makes progress, the third typically has a reactionary backlash, and the 4th finally starts to make some progress.

In the case of something as deeply entrenched as racism -remember

• the final SCOTUS ruling on housing discrimination didn't happen until 1979,
• Georgia suspended ALL public education through 1964 rather than integrate,
• the last lynching took place in 1968 (though if you count James Byrd its 1998)
• Affirmative Action did not BEGIN until 1962

And ast I checked 2006-1979 = 27 years not 60) - the 5th Generation is the one in which the last vestiges of the myth dissappear and it isn't until the 6th generation that you can really make the claim that its gone.

So even if it were 60 years - and it isn't even close to 60 - that would put us in the middle of the 3rd generation's backlash.

And wonders to behold, folks like you are backlashing. Hmmm.

So Tundrayeti (pretty exotic name by the way)

It never occured to you or your volunteers to call someone named "Shyniquae" and refer to her as Ms. ________ (surname). Last I checked, it was pretty standard to make the kinds of "call backs" you refer to by using the terms Mr./Ms./Mrs.... and the person's surname.

freshlegacy:

Might there also be a more subtle concern regarding the most exotic "black names?" Namely, that the person is flaunting their race? I can imagine an employer -- of any ethnicity -- suspicious of a candidate who might be too much on the "ethnocentric" side. Isn't the main challenge of the resume game to eliminate as many unpromising resumes as quickly as you can and just get to the more promising ones? Whether it's embarrassment over a mispronunciation, or concerns over personality, a weird name is just one more excuse to get your resume trashed.

Doesn't that assume that most people pick their own names? OK, I know a couple of people who have done that, but most of us have the names our parents assigned to us.

In any case, why would someone asserting his/her ethnicity be a problem? If I put my name as Thomas Paine on my job app, does that not suggest I am asserting my WASPish ethnicity? If Juan uses his real name, does that imply he is some sort of radical Hispanic activist?

And this proves what?

Standardized tests have their place, but they can also be biased along race lines. That you have an ethnically diverse outcome doesn't preclude that.

I'm backlashing against telling people that they are inherently unable to compete without us forcing others to give them special considerations... I believe that to be a form of racism.

As for my own life, I have a few black friends... not nearly demographically representative, but far beyond the demographics of my respective sub-culture (sci-fi, fantasy), and hobby interests (naturalism, fiction/literature, environmental/energy/political wonking, philosophy, and fitness, with a budding interest in big-band jazz).

Again, you have the right to call me racist if you choose... but I have the right to call you racist as well. I don't choose to, but I believe you support a policy that has a racist undertone of "lack of ability"... in the same way that chivalry is inherently sexist. Simply calling people names if they don't agree with you is not a very good persuasion technique.

BTW, just out of curiosity (and to validate/refute my suspicion), who do you support for president? Obama or Hillary. I'm guessing it's Hillary.

For full disclosure: I've donated money to and supported Obama for about 8 months now.

on its own choose the most qualified candidate based exclusively on objective grounds. If it does so, it will NATURALLY have a respectively diverse employment (in our case far beyond any artifically imposed quotas)... but the absolute certainty is that it will most assuredly have a qualified workforce.

As for whether or not a test is biased along race lines... that is only possible if the information tested is not relevent to the job. If a test is relevent to the job, then the people who don't know the information aren't going to be good at the job. Period. (A good example of a race-based question was a question in an old IQ test that used a Yacht race as one of the words in an analogy... That would clearly advantage wealthy people - which were mostly white... however, if a company that was not in the yachting industry used such a question then the test would clearly have no relevence to the job.)

Nope - your backlash is against losing privileges that allow you to compete only when YOU have special considerations. The policy I support does not speak of "lack of ability". Instead it seeks to level a playing field that grants white males and whites in general, special considerations in hiring, lending, education and a host of other things on a daily basis.

Between Obama and HRC I am completely undecided - the first election in my adult life that this has been true. Obama is the more charismatic leader - and the POTUS is very much about the bully pulpit. At the same time, execution competency is very important to me as well - as is the ability to gut-fight the GOP's attack ads, neither of which Obama has shown much ability to do. Plus Obama is too conservative for my tastes (he's to the right of HRC in so many ways).

So I'm instead going to caucus with the GOP this weekend and push Huckabee.

Oh PLEASE!

However, I guess if someone can not pronounce "Jamal" or "LaTonya" they SHOULD be embarrassed! Any educated 10-year-old can sound out words and names.

Most people do just say "Mrs So-in-so", and the person typically states "Um... she's not here right now."

We had several million names and a limited number of volunteer hours. I simply had them skip the calls. *Shrug* I stand by that.

BTW, I would fully expect that if I filled out a resumé and used the name "Tundrayeti", I would not be called back. If I was called back and the embarrassed interviewer asked for a "Tundrayeti Doty", I'd probably laugh at them.

Almost certainly for the same reasons. :)

It seems we agree on some things after all, even if you do resort to name-calling to try to make a case for something I think has no case.

I grew up poor, real poor. My educational opportunities were the exact same as a disadvantaged black kid for the first part of my life, and my parents fled to the suburbs when they could afford it.

I believe that poverty and educational opportunity deserves consideration for entrance to the secondary education... but beyond that I believe that people that don't compete fairly never develop. Bush is a perfect example of this.

It would be hard, but life is hard. Obama is stating flat out that his children and those of other wealthy black families should compete without assistance. Why can't you understand that they have infinately more advantages than a poor white kid... and that said, how can you support a system that doesn't look past the color of a person's skin before determining who needs help?

BTW, while Obama is more conservative than Hillary on most economic matters (certainly fiscal matters), he's less of a warmongering bully. That matters a great deal to me. Though it's not the reason I chose him, it's something for you to consider.

It proves nothing of the sort. You have no normalizing sample against which to compare the success of your chosen employees. This is the classic mistake that most companies make with their hiring decisions - that THEIR process somehow guarantees them uniquely qualified individuals as opposed to individuals who reflect the prejudices of the interviewers and senior management.

Clearly all hiring is a process of discrimination. The key question is whether or not that discirmination process truly reflects the job tasks required. Usually when there are technical tests given for a job, they over-estimate the technical knowledge required to execute the daily tasks.

As for bias in a test relevant for a job - those exist all the time. For example, if you are testing the ability to calculate percentages, and your examples on the test ask about Earned Run Averages etc. You are inherently prejudicing the question against women who do not pay attention to sports as frequently. T(his is a similar example as your yacht race questions). But since the underlying skill required to do ERA calculations is fairly trivial, many female candidates would still do at least as good a job as the male that overall scored higher in that test.

Your company's test may be non-discriminatory, but I doubt it.

If you have aren't skilled with mathematics you're screwed! If you're applying for an engineering job and you aren't pretty good at electrical engineering and physics you're kind of out of luck as well. :)

BTW, before you even start... What job, other than janitor, do you believe would not benefit from mathematics skills?

:)

When everyone in the world is a racist but you... you're more likely a problem than everyone. Just stating a fact. :)