- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 8,833
- Reaction score
- 10,045
Besides the obvious fact that hiring for anything other than competency will lead to less competency (which should be inherently obvious), there are multiple things you should realize:
1. There are a limited amount of positions at universities, limited amount of jobs, etc. When you choose someone for a job over another, the other person doesn't get that job. If the other person were more skilled or qualified, then you get a less skilled and qualified workforce by picking the person with less skill and qualifications. When you introduce a variable to your hiring practices that does not relate to skill or qualifications, then it essentially follows that your workforce will be less skilled and qualified.
2. We have consistently seen across the board in terms of education and job qualifications reduced requirements for minorities for acceptance. One example is medical school acceptance rates based on GPA and race:
As we can see, the average black applicant that scores 24-26 on their MCATs and 3.2-3.39 on their GPA has about the same chance to get into a medical school as a white or Asian applicant who scored 30-32 with a GPA of 3.6-3.79. These are stark differences in aptitude and qualifications and undoubtedly results in better students being excluded from medical schools, which in turn will result in less competent doctors. This is being seen across the board, with aptitude testing being devalued over things like "trauma essays", reduction in requirements for math and science and non-sense that result in anything but competency.
3. Most high skill jobs are not simply "check these boxes of qualifications". They aren't randomly choosing people based on who checks certain boxes. They are infinitely scaling in terms of competency. They go on and interview people to gauge how competent they are in their particular field. In a non-racist, non-sexist world, the people who are most competent will get the job. However introducing racial and sex quotas introduces a variable that could lead someone who isn't as competent to get a job over someone who is more competent. If a minority was more competent, they wouldn't need racial or sex quotas to get a job because the company inherently wants people who are more competent (because they will do their job better).
4. You make the false assumption that populations want to do the same jobs. There are way fewer black people applying to become tech people than Asian people. I'd say out of 100 applicants at the tech companies I've worked for, only 2 would be black, while there would be a huge overrepresentation of Asians (probably 50%).
5. In a presumptively racist and sexist society, why are Asian women way more overrepresented in high skill positions than even their white male counterparts?
