I'm not even sure how the subject came up, but as I was out on the driveway talking with neighbors a female neighbor mentioned how frustrating it was in college when a minority woman was given an academic scholarship instead of her, when my neighbor had a slightly better GPA in similar classes. Because of her personal experience, my neighbor is not a strong supporter of affirmative action. A little later in the conversation, the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court came up, and I asked my neighbor what she thought. She said without hesitation she was so disappointed that Bush did not choose a woman to replace O'Connor. I asked if she thought there was a better qualified woman she new of over Roberts, or if it was important in other ways just to have a woman. She said it would be nice if the Court had female role models for young girls like her daughter (to prove that there are other career opportunities than being half-naked pop/movie stars) and that the Court as well as Congress should be more representative of the fact women make up a majority of the population.
My neighbor just answered her own question about why the minority woman may have been given the scholarship. We all know life at times is unfair, and that it can never be ideal. If for any other reason, everyone has in their own mind what 'ideal' means, and in the end there is only one reality. Is there a critical mass of women in high positions of government, science, business, and all other fields, that is needed to satisfy most people? And now ask the same question for all subgroups? Is the 'best qualified for the job' the absolute best way to go for a mixed, complex society? Is that the most fair way to approach life? Perhaps, and I think most whites (especially white males) may agree with this. Perhaps not, if you are, say, a black male who has as role models professional athletes or rappers, and you cannot walk into certain stores without being followed by security or walk down a street without a white woman moving to the other side of the street...is life being played on an level playing field for you? What does 'right' mean in these complex discussions on affirmative action, race relations, job opportunities, who gets the scholarship, and all that comes with it?
Of course, I am convinced there is no 'right' answer because it all depends on your own situation and circumstances. It is a relative term. I tend to think that the 'best qualified' for the job or scholarship is absolutely the goal, but I am not convinced it is absolutely 'right' until there is a level playing field. This is something to think about for sure. It would be great to hear any and all thoughts on this one!
3 comments:
Hi hope,
I more or less agree that 'best qualified' is an abstraction, which is part of the reason why this topic is so difficult. It means something a little different to most individuals. There may be instances where there is a stand-out candidate, for sure, but in general it is more vague than that. Hiring is definitely subjective, and I suspect there is some validity to the notion of unconscious prejudice among employers. We are, after all, human, and tend to choose to be around those like us (one can think of your own pool of friends). There are also the intangibles such as judgment, ethics, morality, use of common sense, work ethic, and so on that can be looked for and does not necessarily correspnod to things like academic record, test scores, and other quantitative qualities of an applicant. Makes me think of Gordon Gecko in Wall Street, who dismissed "Ivy League schmucks" and preferred someone who was "hungry and smart." Oh, and he also wanted someone with "no feelings," too.
It would be great to get some comments from some in business who have had experience with the hiring process. I have a lot of friends in such positions, and they are largely frustrated by the lack of strong candidates for most positions they are looking to fill.
BTW, when O'Connor leaves, there is still Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. But she likely won't stay for too many more years (waiting for the next Dem, most likely, before she retires).
Thanks for your comments.
On the other hand....
We ought not to move to the opposite end of the spectrum and get carried away attributing all kinds of mystical, unknowable, undefinable but intrinsically wonderful attributes to differences of gender, ethnicity and race. It's the same irrational mental trap as discriminatory thinking just with a more benign intent.
First of all, American white males have a lot more in common with other 21st century Americans who are female, Black or Hispanic than they do with North Koreans, Xhosa tribesmen or Salafi Arabs. Or than they do with say, equally caucasian Germans in the 1930's or even white Americans in the 1930's. To say otherwise is to exaggerate the differences we see amongst ourselves - outsiders to our society see our commonalities as Americans very clearly.
Secondly, while *perfect* knowledge in terms " best qualified" amongly closely matched individuals is impossible that does not mean sorting people out by their qualifications on a rational basis is an impossible task. Certainly by deciles of ability is both possible and relatively reliable and valid in terms of methodology.
We forget that prior to Charles Conant's meritocratic SAT revolution, access to higher education in the United States was determined primarily by wealth, rather than ability. Rather stupid people went to Harvard and Yale back in the 1920's but today, thanks to the SAT, the student bodies there and at top tier schools are exceptionally bright and have been for about two generations. Standardized aptitude testing was a tremedous step forward in terms of making American society more egalitarian, socially mobile and in terms of opening doors that had once been shut to qualified Jews, women and minorities.
Affirmative action works best and provokes the least resistance when it more clearly remediates the effects of culture and class deprivation instead of trying to finesse candidates who lack native ability in order to get the " right" numbers for an institution under political scrutiny. Mentoring, aggressive recruitment, pre-k and pre-natal intervention, enriched education k-12 are all more successful strategies than simply lowering the gatekeeping bar and letting A.A. candidates sink or swim afterward.
Good points from both hope and Mark. Since I know both of you, you are aware that I am of the belief that culture plays the biggest role in all this. Each generation gets a little better in general, but I agree with Hope that a major problem is what to do with the existing older generations who won't ever benefit from changes that do need to occur for youngsters. Education is the silver bullet if there is such a thing. You both know of Project Excite, so I won't get into details now (plus I have to run). We will have record numbers of minorities entering math classes that are in the track for calculus, but it is a major commitment of time, resources, money, and is long-term (not what most politicians want to hear). But I don't see any other programs out there that can help change the value system and culture that we need to create in order to help on a more massive scale. A tough problem indeed, and one in which we need more resources and funding (pre-natal, health care, preschool, K-12 funding reform, day care, college opportunities that are more affordable, and countless others that need to be at least considered).
Thanks.
Post a Comment