Question

...
Corvin

Is Affirmative Action a form of tokenism?

I have read the tokenism fallacy and from what I am getting it's based on practice that is rather based on symbolism than any producible purpose.

So assuming that everyone is equal in gender, race, and ethnicity (because that is the literal perception of people who advocate for affirmative action) in order to produce good merit, isn't it rather symbolic to get more coloured people into the working space or is there any argument that defends this because I see this rather as tokenism ? thanks.
asked on Monday, Jan 17, 2022 06:22:41 PM by Corvin

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
richard smith writes:

I think it could be and in a lot cases is. To be politically correct now a days as a business you have to have the right mixture of races in your employment or you are consider racist and run the risk of lawsuits. No matter what the qualifications are.

posted on Wednesday, Jan 19, 2022 10:19:50 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Dr. Richard
3

I think it is more pandering than tokenism, but it is sexist, racist, ethncitist, or all three and it discriminates in favor of the less qualified in disfavor of the more qualified and the consumer. As a passenger, do you want the captain of the airplane to be the most qualified to fly the plane or the most [fill in the blank]?

answered on Tuesday, Jan 18, 2022 09:39:49 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
account no longer exists writes:

What evidence do you offer for your assumption that AA discriminates in favor of the "less quaified"? 

posted on Tuesday, Jan 18, 2022 01:43:44 PM
...
2
Dr. Richard writes:

The very definition says to favor one group solely because of a person being a member of that group.

posted on Tuesday, Jan 18, 2022 02:32:23 PM
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Positive discrimination is what you're describing. It's a  form  (not the  only  form) of affirmative action. Also, there isn't necessarily a dilemma between the most qualified candidate and the most diverse candidate - if two people are competing for one job, the minority candidate might gain it at the expense of the majority candidate - not because of their identity, but because they were more qualified anyway. Positive discrimination would enable identity to be used as a  tiebreaker if they were evenly-qualified.

So being a beneficiary of positive discrimination does not, by itself, mean you're unfit for the job, or less fit than the person who was passed over in your favour.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jan 18, 2022 04:54:42 PM
...
2
Dr. Richard writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

I don't think so, and here is why. No two people are exactly equal for anything in life, be it a job or something else. There are always nuances of background, personality, and so on. I don't see how any form of selection based upon giving one person or another "extra points" can be fair to anyone. Thomas Sowell and others have dealt with the subject extensively.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jan 18, 2022 05:31:14 PM
...
0
Ed F writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Affirmative action isn't just used for tie-breakers, it's often used to assure that a certain percentage of those accepted are from certain races or  ethnicities without regard to whether they are the most qualified.  When hat happens, by definition there are people who are more qualified that aren't accepted to make room.

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Jan 19, 2022 02:26:42 PM
...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
0

Not necessarily

From an advocate's point of view: certain groups have historically been (and in many ways, still are) treated unfairly because of how they were born. Thus, they have accumulated disadvantages, notably in the workplace (since they were discriminated against in hiring, payment etc). Thus, to correct these historical and ongoing injustices, it is morally acceptable (or even right) to give members of these groups a 'helping hand', so they can get back on level terms with members of the majority group.

It's only tokenism if it's a half-hearted afterthought with no meaningful intention to improve diversity, or purely done so that it can be used as a defence against criticism later on.

answered on Tuesday, Jan 18, 2022 04:12:58 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments