(05-10-2021 10:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  *edit* It's like when professional sports leagues have initiatives to encourage the hiring of black executives and black coaches. Some here would probably have a problem with those initiatives... "Just hire the most qualified person who has the best chance of succeeding regardless of his or her race. These race-based hiring initiatives are racist!".

If it is race-based, then by definition it is racist.

It is a zero-sum game. If somebody gets a job due to his race, somebody else lost that job due to his race.

So do you have a problem with the NBA having initiatives in place for the hiring of black people for coaching and executive positions? A business decision to keep their employees (players) and fans happy?

(05-10-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah... he didn't say, "I advocate the use of racial quotas for these specific businesses." You are correct.

What he said was, "What I am saying is that if I'm trying to sell to Hispanic, Black, and Asian customers, then looking at my labor force and executive suite in totality, I better see Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians well represented."

Is there a difference?

Yes. A quota is a specific numerical goal. If he had a quota of, say, 20% black employment, it would be 20% at every branch regardless of the customer base. Instead, it appears to me he is saying he would want his employees to represent roughly the customer base. I am sure you are fine with that if the customer base was primarily minorities, but are you still fine with that if the customer base is white?

Numbers, if I misunderstand you, my apologies.

Are there retail stores still where the customer base is "white"? I don't think so in Houston but certainly in other parts of the country it seems likely there still are.

I don't think if a store is hiring they should turn down a qualified person of color simply based on their race. That goes the other way as well for black-owned businesses.

I guess I understand the interest in having the retail employees somewhat reflect their customer base in terms of general composition but is that really necessary in 2021?

I hear a lot comments from the race-activists about the importance of having a staff "that looks like the community". This seems to be a subset of that.

Yeah... I'm not a race activist so I wouldn't know.

(05-10-2021 09:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You are absolutely talking about race-based hiring.

(05-10-2021 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You are absolutely talking about race-based hiring.

SO let me ask you 93.... If you're trying to sell something to someone, do you think it makes sense to show someone like them using the product? Do you put men in women's clothes to sell the product to women? Or do you put women in them? Do you put 60yr olds in an ad designed to appeal to 20yr olds or vice versa? CAN you also appeal to 60 yr olds who want to dress like 20yr olds as well?? Of course. Are you likely to use a 20yr old to do that?? Or a 60yr old??

RACISM is about seeing someone else as 'inferior' to you and not merely 'different'.

Quote: If you want to market to everyone, you try and get people from a variety of backgrounds (based on physical attributes, since you don't get their back story). Is it important to women and minorities to see women and minorities be successful??

There is a commercial out now for iirc a bank... and they have people talking about the sort of things they want to support/invest in... They have a 'hipster' looking guy saying 'invest in black owned companies' and a black guy (about the same age) saying 'invest in green companies'. They are clearly trying to say something by this choice... my guess is that people often aren't single issue, at least not the 'obvious' issue (again, based solely on looks). It's a minor thing, but I think it highly clever.

Does race play into the message they are delivering?? OF COURSE. Are they being racist/engaging in racism? No.

Quote:Anyone involved in marketing who doesn't consider the demographics of his market (and yes, race is part of demographics) is an idiot.

You seem to be implying there is something wrong with someone trying to appeal to his customers??

Quote: If nothing else, someone who opens a store in a neighborhood with a high percentage of minorities who doesn't then hire at least a few minorities is opening themselves up to criticism for not hiring people from the neighborhood... TAKING from the neighborhood, but not GIVING to it... I'd also hire Muslims in a Muslim neighborhood, Hindi's in a Hindi etc etc etc. It helps a business to be culturally sensitive.... and RACE can be part of a culture.

Quote:That said, you often face the challenge of competition and/or 'supply' of labor. It may be hard to hire local people for a poor neighborhood with limited educational opportunities where specialized training is required. In such a case, it might be worthwhile to consider appealing to the community by hiring someone from the community and funding their training.... and if the community is 70% minority, you have a 70% chance of selecting a minority.

Comparisons to things like BET, Miss (RACE) America or FUBU are often made, but they often miss the point. It's not about it 'being okay' to market based on race to minorities, but not to majority... its about recognizing the difference between recognizing race as a difference (like hair or eye color or height or weight or religion) that can impact choices... and seeing someone else as 'inferior' based upon that difference. The majority doesn't need to worry about this because a businesses desire to make MONEY will take care of them. That's not about racism either. It's about math!

(05-10-2021 11:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 10:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  *edit* It's like when professional sports leagues have initiatives to encourage the hiring of black executives and black coaches. Some here would probably have a problem with those initiatives... "Just hire the most qualified person who has the best chance of succeeding regardless of his or her race. These race-based hiring initiatives are racist!".

If it is race-based, then by definition it is racist.

It is a zero-sum game. If somebody gets a job due to his race, somebody else lost that job due to his race.

So do you have a problem with the NBA having initiatives in place for the hiring of black people for coaching and executive positions? A business decision to keep their employees (players) and fans happy?

An initiative that says you *must* reserve so many interview slots. That 'initiative' that you soft pedal seems to have mandatory hard coded numbers and/or quotas in there.

I like the soft pedal of mandatory issues as an 'initiative'.

(05-10-2021 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes. A quota is a specific numerical goal. If he had a quota of, say, 20% black employment, it would be 20% at every branch regardless of the customer base. Instead, it appears to me he is saying he would want his employees to represent roughly the customer base. I am sure you are fine with that if the customer base was primarily minorities, but are you still fine with that if the customer base is white?

Numbers, if I misunderstand you, my apologies.

Are there retail stores still where the customer base is "white"? I don't think so in Houston but certainly in other parts of the country it seems likely there still are.

I don't think if a store is hiring they should turn down a qualified person of color simply based on their race. That goes the other way as well for black-owned businesses.

I guess I understand the interest in having the retail employees somewhat reflect their customer base in terms of general composition but is that really necessary in 2021?

I hear a lot comments from the race-activists about the importance of having a staff "that looks like the community". This seems to be a subset of that.

Yeah... I'm not a race activist so I wouldn't know.

Considering the number of times that you have bandied the term 'systemic racism' as the all encompassing answer to an issue, or the extent that you define the concept of 'affirmative action' as a "trope", you may want to reconsider that statement above.

(05-10-2021 11:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  RACISM is about seeing someone else as 'inferior' to you and not merely 'different'.

Yes... I generally agree with here here. However, recently there have been some definitions thrown around when it comes to affirmative action that minimize the "inferior to you" component.

(05-10-2021 09:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:Anyone involved in marketing who doesn't consider the demographics of his market (and yes, race is part of demographics) is an idiot.

You seem to be implying there is something wrong with someone trying to appeal to his customers??

Not at all and perhaps it is my fault if I haven't been clear.

I was simply pointing out the juxtaposition of #'s advocating for race-based decisions in hiring (in certain situations) with OO's position (sorry if I don't have this correct, OO) that race-based decisions in hiring equals racism.

(05-10-2021 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 11:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  RACISM is about seeing someone else as 'inferior' to you and not merely 'different'.

Yes... I generally agree with here here. However, recently there have been some definitions thrown around when it comes to affirmative action that minimize the "inferior to you" component.

(05-10-2021 09:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:Anyone involved in marketing who doesn't consider the demographics of his market (and yes, race is part of demographics) is an idiot.

You seem to be implying there is something wrong with someone trying to appeal to his customers??

Not at all and perhaps it is my fault if I haven't been clear.

I was simply pointing out the juxtaposition of #'s advocating for race-based decisions in hiring (in certain situations) with OO's position (sorry if I don't have this correct, OO) that race-based decisions in hiring equals racism.

Numbers isn't advocating for race-based decisions in hiring. Numbers is advocating for marketing to your customer base... with race being among the demographics where simple appearance can have an impact. This is a fundamentally sound business practice and is not about inferiority or superiority. People don't 'wear' their history.

Quote:Affirmative action IS a race-based decision, which may or may not be a fundamentally sound business practice. If the government wants to incentivize that sort of thing, they certainly can... but for most of us on this side of the issue, its not the carrot the government uses that is the problem; it's the stick that they and/or social media use.

I'm trying to think of a good stereotypical analogy and perhaps its Birkenstocks. If you sell Birkenstocks, your primary market is white. If you really want to sell them, you want to hire people who like to wear them. Overwhelmingly, this will be white people. Of course, there certainly are minorities who love Birkenstocks... but accusing me of being racist or fining me if I can't find one who wants my job?? Most of us on this side don't think that's the right thing to do.

Quote:One other issue I have with affirmative action is that it often encourages only those who have already been encouraged.... A wealthy black person who may have had a ivy league education or be a child of one has an advantage over a 'not wealthy' white person whose parents may not have even graduated high school by virtue of their race, not their circumstances. I'd prefer that affirmative action consider the circumstances of a person and not merely their race.... so even if you support it, it can be improved.... and if it is going to be successful in leveling the playing field, it MUST do so... and should be designed to eventually go away.

(05-10-2021 12:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:I was simply pointing out the juxtaposition of #'s advocating for race-based decisions in hiring (in certain situations) with OO's position (sorry if I don't have this correct, OO) that race-based decisions in hiring equals racism.

Numbers isn't advocating for race-based decisions in hiring. Numbers is advocating for marketing to your customer base... with race being among the demographics where simple appearance can have an impact. This is a fundamentally sound business practice and is not about inferiority or superiority. People don't 'wear' their history.

I understand this. Again, I'm pointing out that OO has called any race-based hiring decision racist. Go back a few posts to #1667:

He said (verbatim):

"If it is race-based, then by definition it is racist.

It is a zero-sum game. If somebody gets a job due to his race, somebody else lost that job due to his race."

So that is the definition that he is using of "racist.' He's not bringing inferiority or superiority into the equation.

Quote:That's also a concern for me with AA. It's better, if possible, to focus on traditionally underserved/poorer communities than making it strictly about the color of one's skin. A problem is that these schools get so many applications it is difficult for them to really tease out individual circumstances before eliminating the first round or two of applicants.

(05-10-2021 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I need to more fully explain myself not only to 93, but to certain other posters that lad seems to think I am in lockstep with.

Let's take race out of the equation for a moment, just for illustrative purposes. let's instead talk about the height initiative, which aims to correct the historical advantage that taller people have over shorter people in most endeavors of life, including hiring and promotion. BTW, this is a real advantage.

So if we have a policy that says short people will be given preference, is that policy heightist?

I think we should hire the best person for the job, regardless of height. Whether they are 5'2" or 6'2", hire them on their resumes and interviews. some people here have a problem with that approach.

(05-10-2021 06:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I need to more fully explain myself not only to 93, but to certain other posters that lad seems to think I am in lockstep with.

Let's take race out of the equation for a moment, just for illustrative purposes. let's instead talk about the height initiative, which aims to correct the historical advantage that taller people have over shorter people in most endeavors of life, including hiring and promotion. BTW, this is a real advantage.

So if we have a policy that says short people will be given preference, is that policy heightist?

I think we should hire the best person for the job, regardless of height. Whether they are 5'2" or 6'2", hire them on their resumes and interviews. some people here have a problem with that approach.

I don't think anybody here has a problem with this approach. I know I don't.

When discussing college admissions, though, I have a problem with the notion that the "best" kids are the ones with the highest combination of [(SAT score) + (A/P classes) + (extracurricular activities)] in high school. Those can be coached up and/or more available to families that have the means. This means leaving families from poorer backgrounds (often BIPOC families) on the outside looking in for the most part.

What if we didn't look at race but tried to bring in more kids from impoverished backgrounds. Would you see that as "richist" because you were picking a poor kid over a wealthy kid?

(05-10-2021 06:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I need to more fully explain myself not only to 93, but to certain other posters that lad seems to think I am in lockstep with.

Let's take race out of the equation for a moment, just for illustrative purposes. let's instead talk about the height initiative, which aims to correct the historical advantage that taller people have over shorter people in most endeavors of life, including hiring and promotion. BTW, this is a real advantage.

So if we have a policy that says short people will be given preference, is that policy heightist?

I think we should hire the best person for the job, regardless of height. Whether they are 5'2" or 6'2", hire them on their resumes and interviews. some people here have a problem with that approach.

I don't think anybody here has a problem with this approach. I know I don't.

When discussing college admissions, though, I have a problem with the notion that the "best" kids are the ones with the highest combination of [(SAT score) + (A/P classes) + (extracurricular activities)] in high school. Those can be coached up and/or more available to families that have the means. This means leaving families from poorer backgrounds (often BIPOC families) on the outside looking in for the most part.

What if we didn't look at race but tried to bring in more kids from impoverished backgrounds. Would you see that as "richist" because you were picking a poor kid over a wealthy kid?

(05-11-2021 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think there is great value in diversity and this comes from a variety of sources... including but not exclusive or even definitively to race....

(05-11-2021 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2021 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think there is great value in diversity and this comes from a variety of sources... including but not exclusive or even definitively to race....

This is exactly the argument I have been making, when I say things like "who brings more diversity, the white boy from Croatia or the 25th black girl from Bellaire?" I think the leftists focus too much on race/sex as the only indicators of diversity. Would the white kid whose parents were missionaries in Peru bring more diversity of experience to the student body than a black girl from Kinkaid? How about the kid whose parents were in the military and who had lived in Norway, Germany, and Japan?

I found the Rice student body to be very diverse in the 60's, even though we were all white(or whitish). Apparently liberals cannot conceive of any diversity other than racial.

(05-11-2021 10:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  (especially particular posters who seem to seek argument at every turn and are looking to intentionally misrepresent others)

Quote: The easy and popular adjustment has been solely race

(05-11-2021 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2021 10:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  (especially particular posters who seem to seek argument at every turn and are looking to intentionally misrepresent others)

No idea who you are talking about.

(05-11-2021 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote: The easy and popular adjustment has been solely race

So many ways to define diversity...