More on city hall...
I posted this comment over at Democracy in Albany in response to people who were complaining that "we shouldn't be so concerned about race," and were starting to use my statistical fisking of the TU against the claims of people upset with the mayor:
UPDATE: I'm discouraged that this has turned into an affirmative action debate. To those espousing that view - Why does this debate have anything to do with affirmative action?
I can assure you that I am an opponent of affirmative action, but i can also assure you that i think what is going on in the mayor's office is a bit shady.
If the underlying presumption being made by the naysayers is true - that the hirings at city hall are all on the up and up - then I tend to agree with you if you see this as a ploy to get the mayor to promote/hire people on a race basis in an affirmative action manner. But that's just the point. I don't think the hirings are all on the up and up. (Note that i think the TU did an awful job and overstated the case, though).
You say why should we care about skin color? Because it might be the case that people are losing out on jobs in a merit system BECAUSE of their skin color!
If they are not, that would be a different story. But if they are, then 2 things are clear:
1) we're not getting the best workforce for our tax dollars, since better candidates are being passed over for race reasons (same problem affirmative action is described as having).
2) we're singling out a particular sub-population of the community and adversly affecting them - doesn't matter if it's blacks, whites, poor people, left-handed people, or whatever. It's wrong.
To put it in the language of those talking affirmative action right now - if affirmative action is wrong and worth ending, then racial discrimination HAS to be wrong and worth vigorously investigating.
If it's (discrimiation) is not there, and your point is that it's not really there (we're being hoodwinked by some TU/liberal coalition), fine. But otherwise, i don't think you have much of an argument.
I think that all of these comments that argue we shouldn't put so much emphasis on race are misplaced. I think you are misconstuing the situation here. Here's why:
After thinking about this for a day, i'm confident that the most important revelation here is NOT that there might be racism/sexism in Jenning's city hall. The most important revelation is that the majority of city hall jobs are going to people who don't live in the city. This necessarily cuts out of the city job loop the very people who are being ruled over by the city government. It may or may not result in racial disparites. It may or may not be the result of racism. But it doesn't matter. Either way, it's fundamentally no good.
Even if the racial numbers in the city job hirings were completely square, it would bother me that those working at the top of the city job chain are not living in the city. It just seems wrong. We wouldn't let the governor live in Massachusettes or the state hire workers from Pennsylvania. Why should it be any different in the city of Albany?
Perhaps other people don't see this as the bigger deal. But it can never be a good situation when those affected by government decisions are not well represented in the public workforce, and when those in the public workforce are affecting people with whom they do not share a community.
Comments welcome.After thinking about this for a day, i'm confident that the most important revelation here is NOT that there might be racism/sexism in Jenning's city hall. The most important revelation is that the majority of city hall jobs are going to people who don't live in the city. This necessarily cuts out of the city job loop the very people who are being ruled over by the city government. It may or may not result in racial disparites. It may or may not be the result of racism. But it doesn't matter. Either way, it's fundamentally no good.
Even if the racial numbers in the city job hirings were completely square, it would bother me that those working at the top of the city job chain are not living in the city. It just seems wrong. We wouldn't let the governor live in Massachusettes or the state hire workers from Pennsylvania. Why should it be any different in the city of Albany?
Perhaps other people don't see this as the bigger deal. But it can never be a good situation when those affected by government decisions are not well represented in the public workforce, and when those in the public workforce are affecting people with whom they do not share a community.
UPDATE: I'm discouraged that this has turned into an affirmative action debate. To those espousing that view - Why does this debate have anything to do with affirmative action?
I can assure you that I am an opponent of affirmative action, but i can also assure you that i think what is going on in the mayor's office is a bit shady.
If the underlying presumption being made by the naysayers is true - that the hirings at city hall are all on the up and up - then I tend to agree with you if you see this as a ploy to get the mayor to promote/hire people on a race basis in an affirmative action manner. But that's just the point. I don't think the hirings are all on the up and up. (Note that i think the TU did an awful job and overstated the case, though).
You say why should we care about skin color? Because it might be the case that people are losing out on jobs in a merit system BECAUSE of their skin color!
If they are not, that would be a different story. But if they are, then 2 things are clear:
1) we're not getting the best workforce for our tax dollars, since better candidates are being passed over for race reasons (same problem affirmative action is described as having).
2) we're singling out a particular sub-population of the community and adversly affecting them - doesn't matter if it's blacks, whites, poor people, left-handed people, or whatever. It's wrong.
To put it in the language of those talking affirmative action right now - if affirmative action is wrong and worth ending, then racial discrimination HAS to be wrong and worth vigorously investigating.
If it's (discrimiation) is not there, and your point is that it's not really there (we're being hoodwinked by some TU/liberal coalition), fine. But otherwise, i don't think you have much of an argument.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 4:44 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
At 7:47 AM ,Interesting points. And well said. I agree that the issue here is far more nuanced than you will ever get out of the TU. Clearly, educaction patterns and school district boundary lines and racial neighborhoods create and socioeconomic differences create all kinds of nasty race disparities that have nothing to do with racism per se.
Your thinking about the patronage vs. civil service stuff is interesting, although i tend to disagree because i think the sins of the patronage system are worse than the correction they can bring to the civil service system.
mg
At 2:28 PM ,
Please Charles, you don't have to be Catholic to go to Catholic schools. Last I knew my brother was working two jobs to pay $6000 a year to send his two kids to St. Pius X. No subsidies just old fashioned hard work and priorities in order.
» Post a Comment