Just a brief followup. I appreciate that 'Oneofthosedays' understood the point of my post. In reading it again it can sound like I am bashing female doctors. That is not it at all. I was only trying to show the unintended consequences of a policy that strives for diversity rather than raw ability. If the class is 80% female that's fine. The only arbiter should be ability, not sex, race, religion, sexual orientation.
When these descriptors are used to help a 'dominant culture' we call it racism. When they are used to help someone of lesser ability we call it 'diversity' and 'affirmative action'. I want to say a couple more words about such policies.
We have great data on outcomes. They're all bad. Politicians trumpet raw data, such as an increased percentage of a workforce that is (fill in the blank). But what is never said is what happens to that workforce, those placed into schooling for diversity reasons only and, more importantly, to those of higher qualifications who got passed over.
Of course there has been the recent case of the New Haven fire department. White firefighters passed over for promotion sued and won money, promotion and pension increases, costing New Haven millions. Despite this, in New York there is a current case where a judge has ordered changes in hiring practices to promote diversity. There is a strong protest by the fire department. New York teachers are a great lesson in the failure of diversity. When black applicants failed the NY Teacher's exam in disproportionate numbers the union simply lowered the passing score to get a larger number of black candidates to pass. Plumbers hired under affirmative action are 60% more likely to fail their exam, and have lower productivity and much higher rates of absenteeism.
Do you want those teachers? Do you want those plumbers? Let's apply these principles to surgery- let's promote surgical residents from certain countries or ethnic origins, even though they fail their exams. Do you want that surgeon operating on you? I want those who promote racial, sexual and ethnic hiring practices to look me in the face and answer 'yes' to that question.
There's another oddity here. In all the effort to produce female doctors, black firefighters, news stories about female football players, etc, where is there complaint about a lack of female stevadores? In the midst of defining equality as equality of representation and outcome rather than opportunity, why is there no complaint about many areas of racial and sexual disparity? Maybe people don't want to go into certain fields. It may be, like Ob/Gyn these days, that they are perceived as hostile. That is not changed by affirmative action, it is worsened. And as far as promoting those with lesser qualifications, those of ability are getting a fair chance, and performing as well as anyone else with ability. Those achievements are diluted by promoting those without qualification.
No one should be ignored because of their ethnicity or other defining traits. I have heard remarkable stories of Jewish doctors barred from hospital staffs and training programs as recently as the early '70s. But setting officially condoned barriers to white men, or to any group, is no different than a poll tax, or barring Jews, or any other program discriminating against someone based on skin, sex or religion.
It' just wrong. Whether we call it diversity, affirmative action or qualifications, it's all just prejudice and racism.
Ted
When these descriptors are used to help a 'dominant culture' we call it racism. When they are used to help someone of lesser ability we call it 'diversity' and 'affirmative action'. I want to say a couple more words about such policies.
We have great data on outcomes. They're all bad. Politicians trumpet raw data, such as an increased percentage of a workforce that is (fill in the blank). But what is never said is what happens to that workforce, those placed into schooling for diversity reasons only and, more importantly, to those of higher qualifications who got passed over.
Of course there has been the recent case of the New Haven fire department. White firefighters passed over for promotion sued and won money, promotion and pension increases, costing New Haven millions. Despite this, in New York there is a current case where a judge has ordered changes in hiring practices to promote diversity. There is a strong protest by the fire department. New York teachers are a great lesson in the failure of diversity. When black applicants failed the NY Teacher's exam in disproportionate numbers the union simply lowered the passing score to get a larger number of black candidates to pass. Plumbers hired under affirmative action are 60% more likely to fail their exam, and have lower productivity and much higher rates of absenteeism.
Do you want those teachers? Do you want those plumbers? Let's apply these principles to surgery- let's promote surgical residents from certain countries or ethnic origins, even though they fail their exams. Do you want that surgeon operating on you? I want those who promote racial, sexual and ethnic hiring practices to look me in the face and answer 'yes' to that question.
There's another oddity here. In all the effort to produce female doctors, black firefighters, news stories about female football players, etc, where is there complaint about a lack of female stevadores? In the midst of defining equality as equality of representation and outcome rather than opportunity, why is there no complaint about many areas of racial and sexual disparity? Maybe people don't want to go into certain fields. It may be, like Ob/Gyn these days, that they are perceived as hostile. That is not changed by affirmative action, it is worsened. And as far as promoting those with lesser qualifications, those of ability are getting a fair chance, and performing as well as anyone else with ability. Those achievements are diluted by promoting those without qualification.
No one should be ignored because of their ethnicity or other defining traits. I have heard remarkable stories of Jewish doctors barred from hospital staffs and training programs as recently as the early '70s. But setting officially condoned barriers to white men, or to any group, is no different than a poll tax, or barring Jews, or any other program discriminating against someone based on skin, sex or religion.
It' just wrong. Whether we call it diversity, affirmative action or qualifications, it's all just prejudice and racism.
Ted
I completely agree. Thomas Sowell has been saying much the same thing for years. For anyone interested in long term consequences of discriminatory hiring/educational opportunities, Sowell's book "Affirmative Action Around the World: an empirical study" is instructive. He dedicates a separate chapter to each of five different countries where affirmative action has been practiced: India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and the U.S. Sowell didn't just research the outcomes: he personally traveled internationally to talk with scholars, officials, librarians, and ordinary citizens about the policies and results of affirmative action in their countries. Not surprisingly, the research - the hard data - showed that affirmative action around the world uniformly failed, creating even more problems. (Sowell notes in passing, "too often, sweeping assumptions about the past and sweeping assertions about the future have served as substitutes for the difficult task of analyzing hard facts.")
ReplyDeleteDiversity is great. But it must not come at the expense of quality. When one is swapped in a trade-off for the other, the results are bad.
-D-