The voters of the state of Washington passed I-200, which barred affirmative action hiring, in 1998. As a result, “diversity” among state employees has been decimated, right?
The Governor’s Affirmative Action Policy Committee earlier this year reported that state government as a whole has maintained its overall diversity in the workplace over the past five years, despite voter passage of Initiative 200 in 1998, which did away with affirmative action as a hiring strategy.
In fact, employment of racial minorities in the general- government work force rose to 17.4 percent in 2003, close to the 17.9 percent of the state’s population who are people of color. On the other hand, some minorities lost ground, including Vietnam veterans and people with disabilities, and agencies varied widely with their overall minority representation.
“On the other hand“? What other hand? Why is it a problem for agencies to have varied “minority representation”? If it is a problem, does that mean the Employment Security Department should be sanctioned or penalized because its “share of minority employees” is 30.5%, nearly twice the percentage of minorities in Washington’s population?
“The Governor’s Affirmative Action Policy Committee earlier this year reported that state government as a whole has maintained its overall diversity in the workplace over the past five years, despite voter passage of Initiative 200 in 1998, which did away with affirmative action as a hiring strategy.”
So affirmative action didn’t hurt anyone? Good news.
No, ending affirmative action didn’t hurt anyone.
Keep standing for truth and fairness, John. I can’t imagine how many times you’re accused of racism and other nonsense, but just know there are people (of all colors) out here who believe in what you’re doing.
Sounds like the foxes are in control of the henhouse in Olympia.
That might not me so rare.
I want to address the comment “So AA didn’t hurt anyone.”
If a basket ball team hires me, as might happen under AA (I’m 5’5”), then everyone is hurt, both the team and the audience. If the same team hires Dr. J, then the team is improved and the audience gets more for its money. Even though the total number of blacks has not changed.
actus posted:
“The Governor’s Affirmative Action Policy Committee earlier this year reported that state government as a whole has maintained its overall diversity in the workplace over the past five years, despite voter passage of Initiative 200 in 1998, which did away with affirmative action as a hiring strategy.”
So affirmative action didn’t hurt anyone? Good news.
—
Naaa. Everyone’s simply ignored it. The case of blatant discrimination in San Francisco’s contracting, a clear direct violation of 209, was taken to court a while ago. The CA Supreme Court simply refused to hear it. The entire state govt is at fault, bigotry and discirmination have become standard operating procedure, and I have no dount that there are carrots and sticks to assure that it stays this way.
Rich
Posted by John Rosenberg
No, ending affirmative action didn’t hurt anyone.
—
Not so John, ending Affirmative racism hurts all those who profit from it. Since Affirmative Racism is not a victimless crime, I suspect some rough parity between the number harmed by it and those who profit from it (although I have no data to support this).
Rich
St–
>>>I want to address the comment “So AA didn’t hurt anyone.”
If a basket ball team hires me, as might happen under AA (I’m 5’5”), then everyone is hurt, both the team and the audience. If the same team hires Dr. J, then the team is improved and the audience gets more for its money. Even though the total number of blacks has not changed.
John,
Interesting article. I would like to draw your attention to another interesting article, from the October 8, 2003 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
>>>Devah Pager, a sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., sent equally matched pairs of testers – two black and two white – to apply for low-skilled jobs at 350 places of employment in the Milwaukee area and found that white ex-offenders were more likely to be called back for an interview than black applicants who had no criminal record.>>The study’s findings would surprise few African-Americans in this city, who know from experience that this kind of discrimination exists in the job market. Research shows that white Americans, however, have been led to think that direct, racial discrimination of this nature has become less of a problem in our society.
It was even surprising to Pager, a young white woman.
“I expected that there would be an effect of race. I thought the effect of a criminal record would swamp other effects,” Pager says. “That assumption was clearly wrong. It really suggests that stereotypes and assumptions about black males are very much a factor in hiring decisions.”http://www.jsonline.com/bym/biz2biz/oct03/175535.asp
The complete study by Devah Pager is available here at this link.
http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2003/pagerajs.pdf
Pager also did an eye-opening study on the black-white wage gap.
http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2003/pagergrodskyasr.pdf
My conclusion is that there is a definite need for the continuation of Affirmative Action based upon statistical research and data indicating a clear and inarguable pattern of discrimination against minorities.
–Cobra
John posted:
“On the other hand”? What other hand? Why is it a problem for agencies to have varied “minority representation”? If it is a problem, does that mean the Employment Security Department should be sanctioned or penalized because its “share of minority employees” is 30.5%, nearly twice the percentage of minorities in Washington’s population?
—
You’re confused, not only are straight white men *not* a protected class for employment (or anything else), but Congress has removed standing for them to sue the Federal govt for Civil Rights violations. The federal govt (the biggest violator of Civil Rights in the US) then uses the lack of lawsuits as proof that white men are not being discriminated against. Pres Cinton even told this nefarious lie (among so many others).
No doubt Cobra thinks this a good thing. I just don’t have words to describe how wrong it is.
Rich
Here’s how a minority quota works:
If the percentage of a protected minority in the workforce is below the population proportion of that minority, you increase minority employment.
If the percentage of a protected minority in the workforce is at or above the population proportion of that minority, you increase minority employment.
Using those two rules, all cases are adequately managed.