Has society become too politically correct?

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by megashawn
I understand your point here, but this isn't 100% of the case. Many companys , including the one I work for have many minorities in high positions. The situation is improving, but it takes time.

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/stuckmojo/declarationofaheadhunter.html#6

Of course plenty of companies are doing well and/or improving. But I'm sure a large part of the improvement has to do with AA.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
So why aren't there a proportionate number of minorities in colleges and corporate boardrooms? There are two explanations that I can think of. One is that it is a racist society, that's what I believe. Or two, blacks have the same opportunity, but can't compete do to some inferiority. So which is it? What's your explanation?

On the one hand, the argument for AA centers around the notion that individuals to do not come from identical situations, and social circumstances such as socioeconomic status and race play a large role in the extent to which an individual has the opportunity to have an education that is both equally fair to all participants and good in quality. I am definitely in agreement with this idea, but if it is to be held seriously it must be taken into consideration for every claim we make about the status of individuals in a society. With this in mind, I would simply like to introduce a third possible factor that may play a role in, although not determine completely, the distributions of socioeconomic status we see in academia and the workplace.

For the sake of argument I will focus on socioeconomic status here-- it's easy enough to at least imagine a society where racism does not exist, but differing levels of socioeconomic status would seem to be an inevitable fact of a capitalist economy. Race is only implicated to the extent that a larger percentage of minorities belong to low socioeconomic classes than do non-minorities in our society.

Now suppose there is some ideal capitalist society where racism does not exist, and the statuses of the socioeconomically disadvantaged are given the ideal amount of consideration when it comes to college admissions, hirings, etc. That is, for person A with a low socioeconomic status and person B with high socioeconomic status, suppose that A is given the perfect amount of consideration such that s/he is on exactly equal footing with B-- in other words, the disadvantages of B are perfectly balanced out in all considerations of merit, as if in fact B had come from the same socioeconomic class as A, and so they can truly be compared fairly to each other purely in terms of their personal merit, with all underlying social factors effectively canceled out.

Let L be the set of all individuals coming from a low socioeconomic status and H be the set of all individuals coming from a high socioeconomic status. Even given the idealistic and impossible set of considerations above, could we expect to see a ratio R_work of people from L to people from H in academia and higher positions in the workplace statistically equivalent to the ratio R_population of |L|/|H|? Certainly R_work would be much closer to R_population than it is in our own society, but that is not the question here. According to the claim above, we should expect to see R_work = R_population, and if we don't, then it must be indicative of some kind of systematic bias.

But could it at least be possible, given the above ideal situation, that R_work is still less than R_population? I think the answer is, possibly yes. The reason I say this is that it is critical that we recognize all of the social influences that go into determining a person's future. Included in these social influences is not just effects on education and opportunity, but also the unique attitude that comes with being a member of a certain subculture. People from H, on average, may feel pressured to achieve high successes academically, vocationally, and financially in order to 'belong' to their subculture and may even depend on such successes for their sense of self-worth. Likewise, people from L on average may be more content living a simple life with a simple job, rather than essentially making academic/vocational/etc success the focal point of their lifestyle. If this were the case, then we would see that R_work < R_population, even though all compromising socioeconomic effects on an individual's merit have been perfectly balanced out.

Please make note that I am not saying something to the effect of "poor people are lazy, and it's their fault for the situation they're in." Indeed we do not live in an ideal society like the one described above. Rather, I am just questioning the specific claim that if socioeconomic factors affecting individual merit were balanced out perfectly that we would see a statistically equal ratio R_work = R_population.

 

[Zero]

All of that made sense...what we should see is a situation where a person's drive and ability carry them as far as they can go. That situation doesn't exist, and there should be ways to address it.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
So why aren't there a proportionate number of minorities in colleges and corporate boardrooms? There are two explanations that I can think of. One is that it is a racist society, that's what I believe. Or two, blacks have the same opportunity, but can't compete do to some inferiority. So which is it? What's your explanation?

It's not as (forgive the pun) black and white as that. It is a diverse mixture of various factors, race being one, but not necessarily the most prevelant factor. If you eliminate race you still have socioeconomic factors that contribute to the overall picture. The problem is that people are highlighting racism above everything else when it's but one of several factors that contribute to the overall problem. I everyone were the same color, and race was a non-issue, you'd still have economic factors to contend with. As Hypna pointed out, We live in a capitalist society where variable economic classes are inevitable. Everyone can't be a doctor or lawyer, because someone has to fill manual labor jobs. People would then focus on the separation of classes, as has been the case in the past. What it boils down to, is that while racism is an issue, it's one of many, and solving racism while not end bias. Bias will always exist in one form or another, weather it's over race, money, social status, or some other factor of seperation. If everyone in the world was given a single bottle cap,then someone got 2, there would instantly be a class seperation, and everyone with 1 bottle cap would be jealous of the ones with 2. In a truly utopian society everyone would be exactly equal. We do not live in that kind of world.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
It's not as (forgive the pun) black and white as that. It is a diverse mixture of various factors, race being one, but not necessarily the most prevelant factor. If you eliminate race you still have socioeconomic factors that contribute to the overall picture. The problem is that people are highlighting racism above everything else when it's but one of several factors that contribute to the overall problem. I everyone were the same color, and race was a non-issue, you'd still have economic factors to contend with. As Hypna pointed out, We live in a capitalist society where variable economic classes are inevitable. Everyone can't be a doctor or lawyer, because someone has to fill manual labor jobs. People would then focus on the separation of classes, as has been the case in the past. What it boils down to, is that while racism is an issue, it's one of many, and solving racism while not end bias. Bias will always exist in one form or another, weather it's over race, money, social status, or some other factor of seperation. If everyone in the world was given a single bottle cap,then someone got 2, there would instantly be a class seperation, and everyone with 1 bottle cap would be jealous of the ones with 2. In a truly utopian society everyone would be exactly equal. We do not live in that kind of world.

No college admission takes race as the sole factor...the other factors are also accounted for, pro and con. And no one is suggesting that everyone be made completely equal, but there should be an effort to raise the minimum to a reasonable degree.

 

[Zero]

There also seems to be an angry sort of anti-PC movement, where people go out of their way to be the most worthless human beings they can possibly be, in order to show that they aren't PC.

 

[Nereid]

"PC" - only in America?

Reading through this thread again I'm wondering if this whole "PC" thing is just a social phenomenon of the US of A? Of course, given its current position as the only superpower, and the incredible success of its cultural exports, that means the concepts are at least recognisable throughout the world.

To what extent would a discussion like this make sense in the EU, or anyone of its members? Japan? India? China? Russia? Brazil? Indonesia? Nauru?

If our concern is somehow to do with people of the world, and not just the <5% who live in the US, let's look at the admission policies for Tibetans (and other ethnic minorities) at prestigious universities in Shanghai and Beijing, or the numbers of women CEOs of leading Brazilian public companies!

 

[kat]

LOl, you know it's funny you mention that. I converse regularly with a group of "internationals" and have on occasion been accused of being "too white" meaning in general "too american" in being overly PC. This from a group of people heavily involved in UN supervisory missions (elections) and seeds of peace type of situations with youth throughout europe and the middle east.

 

[Njorl]

I have recently recognized conservative political correctness. If you try explaining reasons for terrorism, your accused of trying to justify it. If you try to discuss the causes of anti-Americanism, you are accused of being anti-American.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

This thread(certain posts anyways) could certainly be renamed 'In Defense Of Stupidity'...

Yes, some people go too far in trying to avoid offending people, but the anti-PC crowd sometimes seems to be going out of their way to offend.

See, here's how I see it: at some point, certain people decided it would be a good idea to promote equality, and end racism and sexism. Everyone was going along with it, and the world was becoming a better place for everyone but the racists and sexists. So, what did these slimeballs do? They took a page out of Orwell(and Gingrich), and used language to redefine the terms of the debate. Since they couldn't demonize the terms 'equality', 'freedom', or 'dignity', they wouldn't use those words. Instead, they decided to use the term 'politically correct', and then defined it by using the mistakes of fair-minded people who were a bit overzealous in trying to promote the American ideals of equality and treating all people with respect.
Once Americans became used to the phrase 'politically correct' in regards to admittedly foolish behavior, the trap was sprung, and commentators started using it any time someone tried to promote equality, or counteract racism or sexism. Now, if a racist makes racist comments, and anyone challenges that person, their defense is they are being attacked, not for being an obvious racist, but for being 'pollitically incorrect'. In other words, the racists and sexists and other haters of equality have created a situation where not only can they go back to their pre-civil rights movement behavior, but now they have the support of many Americans who are anti-PC.

 

[Nereid]

Sociobiology anyone?

Let me see now, humans are observed to use language in creative ways, to say one thing and mean another, to appear to deliberately set out to deceive other humans by, and in, their use of language, etc. Chimps in chimp society are observed to display similar behaviour (sans the language). Something inherent about primate species?

 

[megashawn]

Ok, think back to what Zantra originally started this thread for.

Then read this story:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=7&u=/nm/20031126/od_nm/master_dc

And I think the point he was attempting to make is clearly outlined here.

 

[Nereid]

Only in America?

Reminds me of a story (urban legend?) about the invaders from (today's) France (they invaded England, when the US was merely a collection of Indian nations). Some years ago some ignorant folk in the USofA felt they would, henceforth, refer to them as 'Norpersons'.

What's next, a Ministry of Truth?