Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jvalmer]

[zdrav]

[Steelrails]

[zdrav]

[Steelrails]

[zdrav]

[Lonewolf]

Cry me a river. I have fought and clawed my way way up from the bottom. I came from a poor family. I had to work hard for everything. I haven't had anything handed to me. I had to pay my own way through life from 18 until now. People whine and moan oh poor me I'm this. I'm that. No one gives me a break. I didn't get any breaks. I worked my ass off to get into college and I worked my ass off to get my degrees. And I still couldn't get a job back in my own country because you are a white man you get everything. I didn't get shit but a hard time. I'm tired of people saying it's not fair. Life is not fair. If life was fair everyone would be rich. Quit your biatching and work for your goals equal opportunity my ass nothing equal when you apply for 100 jobs and they all say sorry you're not this or that. No one gave a shit about me and I did everything possible to get ahead other than walk on my dreams. And use me as their stepping stone.

[jvalmer]

[zdrav]

[zdrav]

[nate1983]

Numbers, like 1550 vs. 1410 vs. 1100 can be a bit misleading. The inference you're intended to draw is that an equally adept Asian must work a lot harder than a white/black to see the same college admissions results.

The premise is admissions results regressed on race, conditional on ability, are significantly biased against Asians.

However, there's an inherent problem that a simple regression model wouldn't fix (you'd have to find a good instrumental variable - I passed my phd core exams in econometrics fwiw), and that's the fact that Asians, given the same ability/other factors as other races, will generally have higher SAT scores. This is true in a similar sense to whites vs. blacks - but Asians are the most extreme, as Asian parents will go to extreme measures, getting their kids tutors, not letting them out of the house until they've done X number of practice problems, that gives Asian students higher scores than other groups, given the same natural ability, etc. Schools know this, and it has served as the basis of support for affirmative action (white vs. black).

Simply put, if you take 100 representative Asians with a 1400 (old test), 100 whites, and 100 blacks, I think you'd find that the highest natural ability (IQ, college GPA, some sort of proxy) would be blacks, and the lowest would be Asians. I'm not trying to say this is true on an individual level, but I believe it's a fair assessment on the aggregate.

[Lonewolf]

[Lonewolf]

The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States. It first appeared in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961, and it was used to refer to measures to achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required federal contractors to take "affirmative action" to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[2] Matching procedures in other countries are also known as reservation in India, positive discrimination in the United Kingdom, and employment equity in Canada.
[edit] Purpose

Affirmative action is intended as an attempt to promote equal opportunity. It is often instituted in government and educational settings to ensure that minority groups within a society are included in all programs. The justification for affirmative action is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[3] and to address existing discrimination.[4] The implementation of affirmative action, especially in the United States, is considered by its proponents to be justified by disparate impact.
[edit] Quotas

Quotas are not legal in the United States. No employer, university, or other entity may create a set number required for each race.[5]

In Sweden, the Supreme Court has ruled that "affirmative action" ethnic quotas in universities are discrimination and hence unlawful. It said that the requirements for the intake should be the same for all. The Justice Chancellor said that the decision left no room for uncertainty.[6]
[edit] International policies

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of countries that ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." The United Nations Human/Animals Rights Committee states that "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."[7]
[edit] National approaches

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "color blind", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action."
[edit] The Americas

Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are already quotas of up to 20% of vacancies reserved for the disabled in the civil public services.[8] The Democrats party, accusing the board of directors of University of Bras�lia of "nazism", questioned the constitutionality of the quotas the University reserves to minorities on the Supreme Federal Court.[9]

Canada. The equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly permits affirmative action type legislation, although the Charter does not require legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection 2 of Section 15 states that the equality provisions do "not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. In most Canadian Universities, people of Aboriginal background normally have lower entrance requirements and are eligible to receive exclusive scholarships. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type policies. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and disabled people.[10] See also, Employment equity in Canada.

Main article: Affirmative action in the United States

United States. Affirmative action was first established in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961 and required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[11] This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 and affirmed the Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[1] It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on October 13, 1967, expanding the definition to include "sex." As it currently stands, affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 applies to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In the U.S., affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[12] Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[13] and has been contested on constitutional grounds. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 - Supreme Court 2003) concerning affirmative action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems are unconstitutional.[14] Conservatives say that state officials have widely disobeyed it. Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative) and Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative) have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states.

[zdrav]

[zdrav]