Disgruntled Customer wrote:
> "Jack May" enscribed:
>
>>"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
>>news:11b878sgvg5cmb8@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>"Stan de SD" enscribed:
>>
>>>According to Congress merit does not coincide to race, color, creed,
>>>national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc. Which means that if
>>>hiring practice do indeed hire solely on merit, the distribution of
>>>employees will match the distribution of candidates. And that affirmative
>>>action will be unnecessary.
>>
>>That makes no sense at all and is obviously false.
>
>
> If it makes no sense, how can it be false? You're lashing out because you know it's true, but since you can't cope with the truth, you figure an ad hominem attack will get you off the hook.
>
> If you randomly draw a sub-population S from a large population P selecting from characteristic Q, than an independent characteristic R will occur approximately in the same distributions in S and P. It's an elementary statistical hypothesis used in science experiments everyday.
>
> If you do find the distribution of R in S and P is significantly different, it means either S is a biassed rather than random drawing from P, or that Q and R are correlated, not independent.
>
> In terms of employment
> random drawing = EEO, all job candidates are evaluated equally
> S = people you hire
> P = the pool of job candidates
> Q = the "merits" you claim to be using
> R = characteristics that Congress had declared are independent
> to the merits American employers can hire on
>
> So if in your case S and P are significantly different, logic leads to two alternatives. Either (1) you biassed your sampling of the job pool (this means you excluded some people before even considering their "merits", i.e. you're a bigot), or (2) the Congress is wrong and some classes of people mentioned really are inferior.
>
> Since nobody has challenged Congress on this, excluded middle leads to the conclusion that you're a bigot.
>
>
>>>So if the distributions do not match, then to a computable confidence the
>>>hiring is not fair. This is all elementary logic, which undoubtedly why
>>>you cannot follow it.
>>
>>You have not presented a single argument thus far that your statement can be
>
>
> Learn some science. It's a basic statistical hypothesis used to evaluate every experiment.
>
>
>>>Do you really believe employers should be allowed to continue unfair
>>>hiring practices in defiance of the law?
>>
>>What you are stating is not the law and the companies are not in any
>>violation of the law. It would be very hard to find a company that follows
>>your rules, but they are continually certified as being in compliance with
>>the law.
>
>
> I don't have rules. I have statistics and their application. Bigots lie, math doesn't.
>
> --
> Feh. Mad as heck.
You appear to have a real fantasy as to the content of the law. The law
requires that all candidates be evaluated on equivalent and reasonable
grounds. There is no requirement that the result of the evaluation be
equal for any subset of the candidates. Even the reasonably strong
requirement that citizens and residents be given preference can be
overturned for the hiring of a superior candidate from outside the US.
|