Employment Law Entry 10
These entries are getting more and more difficult. I guess it's hard to write a response to a class unless you disagree with something that was said. I can't in good conscience skip an entry. I don't think my last entry will count when I turn my entries in. Perhaps I should also write a response to what was said in class on Thursday while I remember it.
Today, Dr. B-A gave us a rough timeline about civil rights from the beginning of slavery up to present day. The topic she's teaching on now is affirmative action. I kept thinking about T.V. Not that I'd rather be watching T.V. because I hardly ever watch it. What I had in mind was Nick at Night (for some reason, I think they spelled it "Nite") classic television. We've all been tought how art can be a product of the times. It's very sobering to think back to the around the 50s, to imagine being deemed inferior by those who hold power. Of course, none of those atrocities are depicted in Leave it to Beaver, The Dick van Dyke Show, Patti Duke, or Mr. Ed. I wonder if Ward Cleaver was a racist. I wonder if the producers would have had him leading a lynch mob if someone violated a Jim Crow law. I bet Dobie Gillis never fell for a Hispanic or Asian woman. Man alive, I'm really showing my childhood corniness. I bet I'm going to have to respond to a note about "Who the heck was Dobie Gillis?"
One piece of evidence that is inarguable is that all of the characters on T.V. at that time were white. Pertaining to affirmative action, I read an interesting article the other day that mentioned pressure for the networks to include more minority characters. I'll put the web address here; I hope I don't get sued.
http://www.terry.uga.edu/%7Edawndba/4500%20Bias.htm
The article is very interesting and worth the read, provided you don't have something better to do (I'm referring to studying, not playing minesweeper). It seems that not much has changed in 50 years. One very interesting point the article brought up was who makes the T.V. shows. Obviously, people out in California, people who are traditionally very liberal, people you wouldn't think would descriminate as far as what skin color an actor(ess) may be. Honestly, these people aren't racist. To quote James "Cueball" Carville, "It's the economy, Stupid!" (I love that quote) They want to appeal to the demographics who have the most money, who can afford to buy the advertiser's wares so that they advertiser will continue to pay the network. The article goes into which races watch which television shows, and sure enough the Neilson ratings are segregated. I don't want to continue down this path because (a)everything is already in the article and (b)I'm starting to overlap into my essay which was why I had to read the article.
What was especially interesting about what I learned in class today is that quotas are actually illegal, except in extreme cases. Quotas came about because employers were trying to cover their butts. Obviously, if 17% of a staff position is filled with women, but 83% of the women in the community are qualified, it appears that the company is descriminating. The catch is that Equal Opportunity is just that, opporunity. It guarantees that everyone is given the same opportunities regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. Imagine that we're referring to a very upperclass area. The women may feel it is redundant to contribute a second income because their husbands are making seven figures. Because of this, they may opt to spend their time on family life, charity work, and/or social service instead of grinding away at some office clerk job. In short, they have they opportunity to take this job, but they don't want it because of other circumstances. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the statistic looks descriminatory. This is just a general, fictitious scenario that exemplifies part of what we are being taught.
Anyways, the white, male employees got irate once they were being passed over for positions they were qualified, just b/c the company wanted to look like they weren't discriminating. Nevermind that they actually weren't, looks are what matters, right? These positions were going to less qualified candidates because they were members of minority groups who filled the quota. It was reverse discrimination. That's the very premise of Equal Employment Opportunity; equal opportunities for equal qualifications.
To tie this all back together, it looks like the T.V. networks are succumbing to the temptation to have some sort of informal quota system. I don't want to get into the ethical aspects of the article; the article does a pretty good job of that by itself. The only color they care about is the color green. However, as I said in my essay, if you're able to complain about what's on T.V., then your'e watching too much of it.
Today, Dr. B-A gave us a rough timeline about civil rights from the beginning of slavery up to present day. The topic she's teaching on now is affirmative action. I kept thinking about T.V. Not that I'd rather be watching T.V. because I hardly ever watch it. What I had in mind was Nick at Night (for some reason, I think they spelled it "Nite") classic television. We've all been tought how art can be a product of the times. It's very sobering to think back to the around the 50s, to imagine being deemed inferior by those who hold power. Of course, none of those atrocities are depicted in Leave it to Beaver, The Dick van Dyke Show, Patti Duke, or Mr. Ed. I wonder if Ward Cleaver was a racist. I wonder if the producers would have had him leading a lynch mob if someone violated a Jim Crow law. I bet Dobie Gillis never fell for a Hispanic or Asian woman. Man alive, I'm really showing my childhood corniness. I bet I'm going to have to respond to a note about "Who the heck was Dobie Gillis?"
One piece of evidence that is inarguable is that all of the characters on T.V. at that time were white. Pertaining to affirmative action, I read an interesting article the other day that mentioned pressure for the networks to include more minority characters. I'll put the web address here; I hope I don't get sued.
http://www.terry.uga.edu/%7Edawndba/4500%20Bias.htm
The article is very interesting and worth the read, provided you don't have something better to do (I'm referring to studying, not playing minesweeper). It seems that not much has changed in 50 years. One very interesting point the article brought up was who makes the T.V. shows. Obviously, people out in California, people who are traditionally very liberal, people you wouldn't think would descriminate as far as what skin color an actor(ess) may be. Honestly, these people aren't racist. To quote James "Cueball" Carville, "It's the economy, Stupid!" (I love that quote) They want to appeal to the demographics who have the most money, who can afford to buy the advertiser's wares so that they advertiser will continue to pay the network. The article goes into which races watch which television shows, and sure enough the Neilson ratings are segregated. I don't want to continue down this path because (a)everything is already in the article and (b)I'm starting to overlap into my essay which was why I had to read the article.
What was especially interesting about what I learned in class today is that quotas are actually illegal, except in extreme cases. Quotas came about because employers were trying to cover their butts. Obviously, if 17% of a staff position is filled with women, but 83% of the women in the community are qualified, it appears that the company is descriminating. The catch is that Equal Opportunity is just that, opporunity. It guarantees that everyone is given the same opportunities regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. Imagine that we're referring to a very upperclass area. The women may feel it is redundant to contribute a second income because their husbands are making seven figures. Because of this, they may opt to spend their time on family life, charity work, and/or social service instead of grinding away at some office clerk job. In short, they have they opportunity to take this job, but they don't want it because of other circumstances. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the statistic looks descriminatory. This is just a general, fictitious scenario that exemplifies part of what we are being taught.
Anyways, the white, male employees got irate once they were being passed over for positions they were qualified, just b/c the company wanted to look like they weren't discriminating. Nevermind that they actually weren't, looks are what matters, right? These positions were going to less qualified candidates because they were members of minority groups who filled the quota. It was reverse discrimination. That's the very premise of Equal Employment Opportunity; equal opportunities for equal qualifications.
To tie this all back together, it looks like the T.V. networks are succumbing to the temptation to have some sort of informal quota system. I don't want to get into the ethical aspects of the article; the article does a pretty good job of that by itself. The only color they care about is the color green. However, as I said in my essay, if you're able to complain about what's on T.V., then your'e watching too much of it.