|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Do you think it is a good idea to view policy through the lens of which groups get which advantages?
I'm not sure if it actually became a policy or not, but Obama wanted to make it illegal for gov't contractors to do background checks on people being considered for employment.
The justification: There are many people who only committed minor crimes, at young ages, and present no more risk than a person with a clean criminal record. These many people are disproportionately black. Therefore checking people's backgrounds means that less black people get jobs.
Except in real life, what really happens is that hiring managers are forced to rely on group data in the absence of individual data. So you have two candidates for a job. One white, one black. Both equally qualified. But you don't want to hire a criminal, and you know the black guy is X% more likely to have a record than the white guy. In poker terms, it's most +EV to hire the white guy.
That's the fucked up irony of this 'victimized group' game. The solutions actually make the problem worse, or it creates new problems. Either for the same group, or another group. Then the game starts all over again. But this time with a few more supporters, a little more anger, a little less patience, and a little more urgency.
That's the real game...power. Literally no one with a shred of functional intelligence actually cares about achieving equality of outcome across all group identities. The people engaging in this game don't care about equity. They care about power.
|
Reply With Quote