Affirmative Action Explained

[Scotty]

1) This is sometimes but not always the case 2) as someone who has studied martial arts that meant for taking out larger opponents I stopped caring about size and strength, give me skill. Their names weights and heights is not enough information for me to make a choice.

Forgive me, but I made a presumption that you had at some point taken the same sorts of tests I had been subjected to. That is to say, you make a decision based on what information is at hand. If you aren't told anything more than it should not be a part of your decision process.

Yes, it's certainly true that a well-trained, skilled, physically fit smaller person can be stronger and more capable than a fat, out of shape, unskilled larger person. But that isn't the basis of the discussion here. Given both persons are physically fit and well-trained (a reasonable assumption for firefighters and police) the larger person is simply stronger than the smaller. Further, males have more upper body strength than females. This is inarguable from a purely scientific point of view. Thus in jobs where strength count, such as, for example, rescuing people from burning buildings or stopping drunken brawls, the bigger man would be the best choice.

No they aren't for a very simple reason, smoke rises. For the nephew of a firefighter you sure a missing a lot of basic knowledge on fires. Dragging is the preferred method as it keeps the victim out of the smoke,

Dragging takes too long, slows the process down, and keeps both firefighter and victim in the building longer, thus further endangering both. It can also cause damage to the victim. Do you want to drag them down a flight of stairs, or perhaps four or five, banging their heads on every step on the way down?

Your misconception might come from the occasional glimpses of candidate tests for firefighters, which involve dragging a dummy across the floor. However, this is done both because there is no 'partner' for the rescue, and because standards have been lowered in order to allow smaller, weaker individuals, esp, women, to succeed.

Tests twenty years or so ago required carrying the dummy in the firearman's carry, down a flight of stairs. Currently they simply require dragging the dummy across a level floor.

[No but they go carefully and don't use an axe, this would avoid ya know killing the people they are trying to rescue. If they are going to break through a door they are going to use one of these.

I don't beliee I mentioend axes. The point remains that force is often required in order to affect rescues, and thus the individual with the most available force would be the best choice - all other things, such as skill and training being equal.

[bloodyminded]

There seem to be (at least) two issues here, which appear to be quite separate: a perceived injustice towards a formerly priveleged group; and ill effects of such policies on a practical level.

I should think the second claim, at least, might be sealed with some evidence: does anyone know of any substantive evidence that firefighting, say, or police work has suffered ill effects?

The dire-sounding warnings here certainly seem to demand that these ill effects are demonstrably the case.

[Scotty]

Neither large large nor smaller people have a strength advantage. It is all about muscle groups and the ability to distribute the load over a number of muscles. So a small thin women could just as easily out lift a fat man by mere understanding.

I will have to at least quibble with your statement above. You are, as he is, attempting to change the equation from "large vs small", to "out-of-shape-large vs in-shape small". In point of fact, a large man DOES have a strength advantage over a small man - physical fitness and conditioning being equal.

There is a reason why individual sports which test strength, such as weightlifting and boxing are separated by the size of the competitors. However good his shape, however skilled he is, no competition will consider putting in a featherweight boxer against a heavyweight. Nor would they put a featheweight weightlifter into competition with a heavyweight. And putting a heavyweight male against a small female would simply be an appeal to comedy or sadism.

This is all self evident but for some reason there seems to be an aversion to admitting the obvious sometimes because we fear this would be unfair to smaller people. I don't believe, speaking as a smaller person, this is realistic.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Not at all. Dead false.

I have some respectful disagreements with conservatives. The only ones I actively disparage are the paranoid, lunatic Right...the Glenn Becks among us.

I see far too much disparagement here, from Left and Right, from Conservative and Liberal. It is not conducive to intelligent debate, and does not respect the rules as set forth below.

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS

Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Ya know I'm bored so I think I'll respond to this.

You shouldn't. You are simply wrong, TrueMetis. This doesn't reflect on your honor, integrity, intelligence, morality, or anything else you ought to care about. You're mistaken. That's all. It's no big deal. I'm often mistaken!

[Scotty]

There seem to be (at least) two issues here, which appear to be quite separate: a perceived injustice towards a formerly priveleged group; and ill effects of such policies on a practical level.

I should think the second claim, at least, might be sealed with some evidence: does anyone know of any substantive evidence that firefighting, say, or police work has suffered ill effects?

The dire-sounding warnings here certainly seem to demand that these ill effects are demonstrably the case.

Ah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? To have a definitive study of such things? Alas, there has never, to my knowledge, been such a study, for who would call for one? Who would dare run one? And who would cooperate? There seems to be an aversion to even keeping statistics based on race, even for criminals. I can't imagine cities would allow a study on competence based on race of any of their employees, and can't imagine the unions allowing it. And I have a good imagination!

So we fall back on logic, which can at least be debated, and personal experience, which would simply be dismissed as anecdotal or based on a dishonest need to support our argument.

[bloodyminded]

I see far too much disparagement here, from Left and Right, from Conservative and Liberal. It is not conducive to intelligent debate, and does not respect the rules as set forth below.

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS

Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

If Glenn Beck frequents this board, he has remained anonymous. No one forced him to.

Perhaps you mistook "among us" to mean here on MLW, rather than among the pubic debates generally. I was decidedly not referring to the posters here, none of whom particularly resemble Glenn Beck in any serious way, that I've noticed.

As to the charges I made, they are not my opinion: that Skousen was a paranoid conspiracist, abandoned by most conservatives for what they deemed his racism (among other issues); that Glenn Beck is a big fan (as he states it openly); nor that Beck wrote a Forward to a new edition of Skousen's book, and that Beck's imprimateur rocketed the paranoid rant to number one on Amazon.

In brief, I don't quite know what you're complaint is. Unless you admire Glenn Beck...an unfortunate incidence, but not in any way my fault, I hope you agree.

[bloodyminded]

Ah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? To have a definitive study of such things? Alas, there has never, to my knowledge, been such a study, for who would call for one? Who would dare run one? And who would cooperate? There seems to be an aversion to even keeping statistics based on race, even for criminals. I can't imagine cities would allow a study on competence based on race of any of their employees, and can't imagine the unions allowing it. And I have a good imagination!

So we fall back on logic, which can at least be debated, and personal experience, which would simply be dismissed as anecdotal or based on a dishonest need to support our argument.

It would indeed be nice, for something to back up stated assertions presented as infallible "logic"....so logical that evidence is not needed; and, conveniently for your argument, wouldn't be "allowed" under the Orwellian influence of the supporters of Affirmative Action, who somehow have let ten thousand conservative polemics against such Orwellian Thought Police to be published. Is Affirmative Action the one and only sacred cow that no one would "allow" to be seriously studied?

You seem to think that my mere asking for evidence of claims being made (in a pretty reasonable tone, in friendly deference to remarks you made on the subject of tone to other posters) is unreasonable.

That's topsy-turvy.

At any rate, I didn't ask for a "study"; I asked for some "substantive evidence." And while I admit that's vague, it does not denote a scholarly treatise.

How about some evidence, whether we agree it's substantive or not?

Do you have anything?

And is that, too, asking too much?

[Guest TrueMetis]

I will have to at least quibble with your statement above. You are, as he is, attempting to change the equation from "large vs small", to "out-of-shape-large vs in-shape small". In point of fact, a large man DOES have a strength advantage over a small man - physical fitness and conditioning being equal.

There is a reason why individual sports which test strength, such as weightlifting and boxing are separated by the size of the competitors. However good his shape, however skilled he is, no competition will consider putting in a featherweight boxer against a heavyweight. Nor would they put a featheweight weightlifter into competition with a heavyweight. And putting a heavyweight male against a small female would simply be an appeal to comedy or sadism.

This is all self evident but for some reason there seems to be an aversion to admitting the obvious sometimes because we fear this would be unfair to smaller people. I don't believe, speaking as a smaller person, this is realistic.

Never heard of the Gracie's I take it.

[Scotty]

If Glenn Beck frequents this board, he has remained anonymous. No one forced him to.

Perhaps you mistook "among us" to mean here on MLW, rather than among the pubic debates generally. I was decidedly not referring to the posters here, none of whom particularly resemble Glenn Beck in any serious way, that I've noticed.

I have noticed a habit which is fairly common among many posters here to engage in sneers, disrespect, ridicule and mockery towards those they are debating, often clearly based on previous acquaintance/argument. It seemed to me that this was starting to trend in that direction and I merely wished to point out that this is against the rules of the site and that it interferes with intelligent discussion.

[Scotty]

Never heard of the Gracie's I take it.

TrueMetis, we will have a tug of war. I will be driving a Dodge Ram. You will be driving a Smart Car.

Would you care to place any bets on who will win?

[bloodyminded]

I have noticed a habit which is fairly common among many posters here to engage in sneers, disrespect, ridicule and mockery towards those they are debating, often clearly based on previous acquaintance/argument. It seemed to me that this was starting to trend in that direction and I merely wished to point out that this is against the rules of the site and that it interferes with intelligent discussion.

I understand the sentiment, have sympathy with it, and even plead guilty.

But you quoted me and then responded to that quote with that sentiment, when I was doing nothing of the kind. Admonishing people for their behaviour when they are specifically not performing in the negative way might well be counterproductive; at the least, it's unhelpful.

And it might be coincidence--correlation without causation, as the phrase goes--that you singled me out for admonishment (albeit inaccurately, as pointed out), rather than the more aggressive, trollish poster to whom I was speaking, and whose political opinions align more closely with your own than mine probably do.

Edited January 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest TrueMetis]

TrueMetis, we will have a tug of war. I will be driving a Dodge Ram. You will be driving a Smart Car.

Would you care to place any bets on who will win?

Which model of Dodge Ram and which model of Smart Car? Why are you so adverse to giving enough information? Of course it's a really stupid comparison, models of cars are in no way equivalent to people of different weights.

[Scotty]

I understand the sentiment, have sympathy with it, and even plead guilty.

But you quoted me and then responded to that quote with that sentiment,

I apologize if it seemed I was singling you out. The conversation between the two of you was trending in that direction, no doubt due to previous discussions of a similar sort.

I think this site could do with more moderation. I've come across literally hundreds of posts over the past few weeks which fail the test of respect. It seems to me that someone sneers at someone else who they have previous unpleasant acquaintance with, then that person sneers back, and so on and so on until they're simply resorting to namecalling.

Proper moderation would stop that at its inception.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

It would indeed be nice, for something to back up stated assertions presented as infallible "logic"....so logical that evidence is not needed; and, conveniently for your argument, wouldn't be "allowed" under the Orwellian influence of the supporters of Affirmative Action,

First, let's recap. Your side says affirmative action is necessary and beneficial. No evidence has been presented of this. My side says affirmative action is unfair and just as racist as any other kind of prejerential hiring, also with no evidence to speak of.

So I don't think it's fair of you to suggest that my lack of evidence invalidates my argument while embracing the counter argument which has a similar lack of evidence.

Second, while you are disparaging (and embellishing) my statement suggesting such studies would not be allowed you haven't actually said I was wrong. So let me ask you point blank. Do you believe that a city like, say, Toronto, would undertake a study of police competence based on race, or that the union would allow it?

Edited January 2, 2011 by Scotty

[bloodyminded]

First, let's recap. Your side says affirmative action is necessary and beneficial. No evidence has been presented of this. My side says affirmative action is unfair and just as racist as any other kind of prejerential hiring, also with no evidence to speak of.

So I don't think it's fair of you to suggest that my lack of evidence invalidates my argument while embracing the counter argument which has a similar lack of evidence.

But as I said, clearly--and to which you responded--my remark was directed solely at the second complaint (which is quite unrelated to the first, that of "injustice" or "racism)."

I was speaking only of the implied deleterious practical effects upon these professions, as professions.

Second, while you are disparaging (and embellishing) my statement suggesting such studies would not be allowed you haven't actually said I was wrong. So let me ask you point blank. Do you believe that a city like, say, Toronto, would undertake a study of police competence based on race, or that the union would allow it?

First of all, to reiterate, I didn't ask for a "study." I didn't ask for it in the first post, and I underlined this fact in the next. I asked first for "substantive" evidence; and then downgraded it to "some" evidence.

The bar therefore could scarcely be lower; but you not only refuse to provide something that we could sink our teeth into, but actively reject the very request as if it's unfair. This is a bit of a jaw-dropper, seriously. I mean, "political correctness" doesn't stop people from publishing stories and posting about verifiable incidents. Hell, it doesn't stop people from insisting that the U.S. President is a Muslim/socialist operative bent on destroying America; it doesn't stop the truth, or lies, or what squats in between.

If no stories are available, that might be because there are no stories that buttress your presumptions.

Second, I have no doubt that such a study could be ascertained within existing studies that must be done on a fairly regular basis; there are surely reviews which discuss police and firefighting successes and failures: how many errors, how many problems, the nature of the problems, and how they relate to previous blocks of time (whatever the standardized review era would be).

In other words, if performance is down--the reasons could be discussed. The conclusion could be affirmative action hiring practices, or it could be something else. But it could be looked at.

And if performance is not down, then there's no good reason to suspect ill effects as a result of the policies.

At any rate, you offer literally nothing, and then say we should agree with you anyway.

Edited January 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

If Glenn Beck frequents this board, he has remained anonymous.

Yes, Reverend Wright.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, Reverend Wright.

No, I'm the Dalai Lama.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No, I'm the Dalai Lama.

Ironically I'm the pope, so nice to meet you your holiness.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Even in the U.S.,...

I delight in this oft used construct to increase the veracity of one's position in Canada.

[kimmy]

First of all, to reiterate, I didn't ask for a "study." I didn't ask for it in the first post, and I underlined this fact in the next. I asked first for "substantive" evidence; and then downgraded it to "some" evidence.

The bar therefore could scarcely be lower; but you not only refuse to provide something that we could sink our teeth into, but actively reject the very request as if it's unfair. This is a bit of a jaw-dropper, seriously. I mean, "political correctness" doesn't stop people from publishing stories and posting about verifiable incidents. Hell, it doesn't stop people from insisting that the U.S. President is a Muslim/socialist operative bent on destroying America; it doesn't stop the truth, or lies, or what squats in between.

If no stories are available, that might be because there are no stories that buttress your presumptions.

Second, I have no doubt that such a study could be ascertained within existing studies that must be done on a fairly regular basis; there are surely reviews which discuss police and firefighting successes and failures: how many errors, how many problems, the nature of the problems, and how they relate to previous blocks of time (whatever the standardized review era would be).

In other words, if performance is down--the reasons could be discussed. The conclusion could be affirmative action hiring practices, or it could be something else. But it could be looked at.

And if performance is not down, then there's no good reason to suspect ill effects as a result of the policies.

At any rate, you offer literally nothing, and then say we should agree with you anyway.

I'm trying to figure out what you're suggesting should happen here.

Are you suggesting that there is some quantifiable metric we could look at that would tell us whether police performance is improving or declining, and then speculate as to whether affirmative action might be the cause?

Are you suggesting we could look at specific incidents of police failure and examine whether affirmative action policies may have been a contributing factor?

These are obviously non-starters. I'm puzzled as to what sort of information you're requesting be brought forward.

What if we were to look the Robert Dziekanski incident, and note that taser-enthusiast Kwesi Millington is, indeed, a visible minority. What does that get us? We still have no reasonable means of determining the circumstances of his admission to the RCMP. We have no way of knowing whether the RCMP would have accepted him if his race weren't taken into consideration. It seems reasonable to suggest that Millington appears to be a substandard officer, but we have no way of knowing whether his hiring was a result of a decision to accept a lower standard because of his skin color, or if his hiring was a result of a failure to identify him as a substandard individual at all.

Am I misunderstanding what you're asking for?

Sure, you're setting the bar low, but you've set it so low that what you're actually asking for is completely without value. There's no way of discussing this intelligently without real data which we all know we'll never get.

-k

[bloodyminded]

I'm trying to figure out what you're suggesting should happen here.

Are you suggesting that there is some quantifiable metric we could look at that would tell us whether police performance is improving or declining, and then speculate as to whether affirmative action might be the cause?

Are you suggesting we could look at specific incidents of police failure and examine whether affirmative action policies may have been a contributing factor?

These are obviously non-starters. I'm puzzled as to what sort of information you're requesting be brought forward.

What if we were to look the Robert Dziekanski incident, and note that taser-enthusiast Kwesi Millington is, indeed, a visible minority. What does that get us? We still have no reasonable means of determining the circumstances of his admission to the RCMP. We have no way of knowing whether the RCMP would have accepted him if his race weren't taken into consideration. It seems reasonable to suggest that Millington appears to be a substandard officer, but we have no way of knowing whether his hiring was a result of a decision to accept a lower standard because of his skin color, or if his hiring was a result of a failure to identify him as a substandard individual at all.

Am I misunderstanding what you're asking for?

Sure, you're setting the bar low, but you've set it so low that what you're actually asking for is completely without value. There's no way of discussing this intelligently without real data which we all know we'll never get.

-k

Yes, your objections are all good ones; but let's remember how this particualr little back-and-forth got started.

It was claimed--concretely--that the problem with aa is actually twofold: not just the alleged racism and injustices in the first instance, but real-world, practical effects in the second.

Well, this is a declarative statement, so I think we can ask if it's true.

And yes, convincing evidence would be extremely difficult to come by, I agree; even if the fears came to pass, it would be no easy feat to demonstrate the effects (unless they profound indeed, perhaps).

But we're not talking about fears being expressed: we're talking about declarations that they have come about.

As is normal and reasonable in such discussions, I should think the onus is on the person making the original (unproven) assertions, moreso than the person objecting to them.

What if we were to look the Robert Dziekanski incident, and note that taser-enthusiast Kwesi Millington is, indeed, a visible minority. What does that get us? We still have no reasonable means of determining the circumstances of his admission to the RCMP. We have no way of knowing whether the RCMP would have accepted him if his race weren't taken into consideration.

again, i take your point, but this example would not be evidence of failed aa policies even if aa were a factor in his hiring; because taser-happy police are not unusual--they're legion--so there is no correlation between non-white male and taser use by any measurement.

(But not to sidetrack, because your point still stands, without that particular example.)

Edited January 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

But we're not talking about fears being expressed: we're talking about declarations that they have come about.

As is normal and reasonable in such discussions, I should think the onus is on the person making the original (unproven) assertions, moreso than the person objecting to them.

To declare as fact that the quality of service has declined is completely unprovable. But it's reasonable to speculate that a declining quality of service is a likely result of accepting lower-quality applicants.

again, i take your point, but this example would not be evidence of failed aa policies even if aa were a factor in his hiring; because taser-happy police are not unusual--they're legion--so there is no correlation between non-white male and taser use by any measurement.

If you're asking for correlations between taser use and the race of the officers involved, then you're asking for a study after all.

We don't actually need to know anything about that.

All we need to know is the circumstances of Millington's hiring. If they knowingly accepted a questionable candidate because he was black, then clearly racially based hiring practices undermined the quality of service. That other substandard officers may have been recruited for other reasons doesn't deflect from that.

-k

[bloodyminded]

To declare as fact that the quality of service has declined is completely unprovable. But it's reasonable to speculate that a declining quality of service is a likely result of accepting lower-quality applicants.

Sure.

If you're asking for correlations between taser use and the race of the officers involved, then you're asking for a study after all.

Not necessarily a "study," or not as that word has been in contention in this particular argument. It could conceivably be ascertained in minutes.

We don't actually need to know anything about that.

All we need to know is the circumstances of Millington's hiring. If they knowingly accepted a questionable candidate because he was black, then clearly racially based hiring practices undermined the quality of service. That other substandard officers may have been recruited for other reasons doesn't deflect from that.

-k

Fair enough.

[wyly]

All we need to know is the circumstances of Millington's hiring. If they knowingly accepted a questionable candidate because he was black, then clearly racially based hiring practices undermined the quality of service. That other substandard officers may have been recruited for other reasons doesn't deflect from that.

I'm skeptical fo such claims of substandard officers being hired to fill racial quotas...I've known a number of cops over the years and they come in all colours, and I've known some who failed to qualify and they came in various colours as well...