I definitely did not say selective immigration is the sole reason for the model Asian American minority myth, but it's a large component. You can see my previous posts for other components to the myth.Selective immigration is only one of many reasons listed why the stereotype turns out to ring true in certain (not all - South Asians seem to be the odd ones out, immigrants from India and China lead the charge) groups of Asian immigrants. Cultural differences is another, and given the fact that the same emphasis on educational achievement can be seen in modern China and India today, I'm going to lean on that as the root cause. It is not uncommon to see Chinese parents in particular putting their children under intense, often unreasonable pressure to perform. That does translate to better outcomes in the education system, however it's rather detrimental to mental health (given the suicide rates in those parts of the world). It's a culture that's laser-focused on success, both domestically and in the United States.
The worse the economy, the more the racial discrimination, since there is increased competition for jobs. Various studies, including more contemporaneous studies, show that in economies where there's more job competition, people of color have increased barriers to job acquisition. Studies in 2009 and 2016 show the same thing (people of color were 50% less likely to receive a job interview solely on the basis of race) as the 2004 study I mentioned earlier. A 2015 study showed that people of color had to graduate from elite private colleges in order to have the same job prospects as a white person who graduated from a state university. When these facts are repeatable across the broad economic system, it's a systemic problem.This study is almost 20 years old and doesn't reflect the current job market. That's not to say that there isn't progress to be made, however as of today minority hires make up the bulk of all new hires (25-54). It appears to me that the tide is turning around as-is. The job market is cyclical - in order to record a new hiring one of two things needs to happen, a new job needs to be created *or* an old employee needs to retire to make room for a new one. Right now we're seeing both a wave of retirements and (up until the pandemic) an economic boom, so the trend is likely to continue (unless inflation catches up to us).
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/minorities-ages-25-to-54-make-up-most-new-hires-in-workforce.html
We know your views on government intervention. You've said previously that you don't even think it should be illegal for a private business to refuse service to an entire group of people (race, sexuality, etc.). We don't need to rehash that conversation, but it's safe to say you care more about libertarian ideology than whether or not systemic racism is a problem. You seem to care more about a business' right to discriminate on the basis of race than you care about the right of the person to not be systematically oppressed on the basis of race.I'm of the opinion that the government should do absolutely nothing in terms of who private companies hire and for what reasons.
If you think merit should be the sole criteria for whether or not a person is hired for a job, then you should be outraged by the systemic racism I've outlined previously.The qualifications to do the job are the only relevant factor in hiring. I'm not particularly interested in what skin colour an employee is, I do care about whether or not they can help me with my query quickly and reliably.
If a group makes up 16% of the population, for example, then one would expect 16% of the employees at a company in that area to also be 16% that group. Since, across the board, that number falls far below 16%, then there's a problem. There are a lot of variables, but it largely comes down to access to quality education, socioeconomic status ("cost of poverty" can make it harder to get work), discrimination, etc. One of the ways to solve that problem is affirmative action. Given these facts and the fact that Black people in this country continue to have disadvantages stemming from having slave ancestors, affirmative action is a great way to right these wrongs. There's literally no reason why a group that makes up approximately 16% of the population, for example, should not make up 16% or more of a given workforce. Affirmative action helps mitigate the consequences of systemic discrimination and biases, and it helps give education and wealth to families that otherwise haven't had it before, which will perpetuate a cycle in which they can pass the wealth on to the next generation and give them some of the same advantages a lot of white people have had for hundreds of years.I consider affirmative action or diversity quotas as explicitly racist in nature, freedom of association should always trump social engineering.
I suggest looking into the history of the Civil Rights Movement. Changes in hiring practices were not "organic." They were the result of an organized movement towards racial justice in this country.Nobody said changes in hiring practices would take place instantaneously, they should be organic, and for the most part have been organic.
Your distinction between whether or not something should be "organic" seems completely arbitrary. In other words, there's no reason I'm aware of why it should be, unless you're arbitrarily clinging to libertarian ideals that aren't actually conducive to well being.
See my previous point about the economic system in this country being systematically racist. It doesn't take a government for something to be systemically racist.As long as there is *no law* that encourages discrimination based on race, I am perfectly happy concluding that any discrimination that does take place isn't systemic, as in, a part of an organised system.
That's nice to believe, but that's not necessarily true, particularly when there's a surplus of job applicants relative to actual jobs available.People's biases are what people's biases are - businesses that refuse to hire well-qualified employees based on skin colour alone will inevitably fall behind those businesses that do not, their hiring pools are smaller (by their own making).
Does that include names? Because we've already been over studies where only the names were different, and that's all it took for consequential racial biases to occur.One thing that has helped close the gap in the UK and is worth emulating is the standardisation of job application forms. Here on the other side of the pond including any identifying information like spelling out the race of an applicant or attaching photographs is a disqualifying factor, it's not practiced specifically to avoid biased selection. The initial picks are chosen solely on the basis of qualifications and the cover letter, which is great.
I'm generally in favor of the standardized application form, however. Factors like race, previous incarceration, etc. should come up later, if at all.
You cannot argue you're interested in conclusions that are data-driven while ignoring the data-driven conclusion that black communities are overpoliced.I'm only interested in conclusions that are data-driven and not decades old. I'm also thoroughly uninterested in works that explain the current situation away with the specter of "systemic racism" - either they can point to a policy that is in law here and now that's holding minorities back or they can't. With that being said, you can shoot me a PM with a bibliography and I can give it a cursory read - I'm rather familiar with the subject, I'm simply highly critical of some of the conclusions, particularly when I can come up with 20 better explanations each time the ghost of racism is mentioned.
Evidence suggests that "black communities" (I still can't understand how that's a "community", I'm against grouping people by skin colour on principle) are heavily *underpoliced* when taking into account the levels of crime in those areas. If there's a symptom of "systemic racism" at all, it's that. Certain parts of town are "not worth policing" to an extent that would generate a measurable decrease in crime rates, which in turn would result in better outcomes for young people who live there, including black youths. 131+ people have been killed in Chicago this year already, and it's only April. If I was a hypothetical mayor of a city like this, there would be a cop on every street corner going forward until people stop dying needlessly in drive-by shootings. I can't imagine being able to focus on fulfilling my potential when there's a good chance I'll get randomly shot - not by the police, but by my neighbour.
There's an excellent Wikipedia article here on the different barriers people of color face at each stage of the criminal justice process. I'm honestly not sure why I'm talking about it here when this information is freely available to the public.