I want to break the impression that Affirmative Action/DEI began in 2014 or is limited to school admissions and a handful of infamously left-wing fields. Here are some excerpts from chapter 4 of the 1992 book "Paved With Good Intentions." First, firefighting.
Police, firefighting, sanitation work, federal civil service. All public fields throwing out tests because blacks scored lower. These fields don't have market competition, so eliminating these tends to make them very dysfunctional.
Court order whites be fired first during teacher cuts, school boards who did not meet racial targets suspended.
The arbitrariness of affirmative action categories - Spaniards qualify. Whites faking black, Hispanic, and Asian ancestry in response.
Extremely tortured legal logic from the Supreme Court. "in order to treat some person's equally, we must treat them differently."
Justice Thurgood Marshall: “You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it is our turn.”
In 1989, 36 states had set-aside programs mandating a certain % of contracts go to women or nonwhites. This obviously makes government procurement less effective and also invites rampant cheating.
Atlanta (in 1989 under a black government for 20 years) spent half a million dollars on a project to find past discrimination so it could keep these set-asides going. NY and SF similar.
The US Labor Department does not approve government contracts with companies that don't practice affirmative action. The FCC can revoke broadcaster's licenses for insufficient diversity.
Northwest Airlines shaken down and forced to not only set up special promotion channels for nonwhites but also finance scholarships for them.
The Small Business Administration gives preferential loans to minorities.
The FBI gives additional points on its hiring tests to nonwhites, and throws out the results if not enough nonwhites make it through anyways. State Department stopped considering foreign language skills because too few blacks spoke them and has a lower threshold for hiring them.
Not just a govt thing. Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, and many newspapers have special hiring and promotion channels for nonwhites.
Other companies give executives bonuses for hiring and promoting more women and nonwhites, have minority-exclusive internships. KFC makes 3 executive lists so blacks only compete with blacks and women with women.
Only 14% of Fortune 500 CEOs in 1990 said they ignored race and hired exclusively on merit. Which makes sense, since so many companies tie bonuses to hiring fewer white men.
Minority-only job fairs are common. Black engineers are so in demand that Howard University began demanding donations to allow companies to recruit engineers there.
USG used to have a sophisticated psychometric test, the GATB, that they provided as a service to both govt agencies and private employers. But they race-normed results, so given an equal score the reported results would show black > Hispanic > Asian = white.
DEI training is not new. To diffuse white resentment of being discriminated against, companies gave "sensitivity" training to white employees. In one case, answers given when asked for negative stereotypes were used as evidence of bias later by Judge Patel in San Francisco.
Big 3 automakers all subsidize nonwhite-owned car dealerships.
Grant-making bodies, like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations and National Endowment of the Arts, favor nonwhites.
College hiring committees had to justify not hiring minorities as early as the 1970s. Many hiring processes explicitly excluded whites.
Many colleges give additional tuition assistance to nonwhites, as well as money, counseling, tutoring, and advice.
There are many race-exclusive scholarships available. An attempt to stop this was scuttled by Bush I.
In the early 90s, Texas A&M was spending $5.5M/yr on minority recruitment and retention. Too many whites can threaten a college's accreditation status.
At Berkeley, both whites and Asians were discriminated against. However, Asians raised a stink and as a result were not underrepresented while whites were by a factor of two. Racial composition of admissions at selective schools is mostly determined politically.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
More on the long history of affirmative action/DEI in the US. These excerpts are from Chapter 5 of the 1992 book "Paved With Good Intentions," and cover affirmative action outside of education and employment. The 1978 Community Reinvestment Act forced banks into giving subsidized loans to nonwhites.
When broadcasting licenses change, citizens can challenge the racial bona fides of their hiring policy, allowing black activists to extort money and jobs through threat of lawsuit.
There are tax breaks for selling broadcasting stations to nonwhites, in the tens of millions of dollars.
Brief thread on human capital, education, and skilled immigration. The major source of human capital is on-the-job experience; the main function of education is getting your foot in the door for your first job.
There's a market failure here wherein firms don't invest in training because a trained worker can then easily leave, instead electing to only hire people who can already do the job (hence all the "entry level: 5 years experience required" postings).
There's a huge entry-level job bottleneck. Entry level jobs, and not education, are the major source of skilled workers in a field, hence why you can have many grads not employed in their chosen field and a 'shortage' simultaneously.
Argument against doctrinaire free trade: (1) labor market scarring (2) loss of human capital (skills learned on the job, not schooling) (3) loss of physical capital (machines) (4) allocative/Ricardian benefits are a one-time windfall, while industry has high productivity gains.
Note: all of these arguments are common in economics literature, just not typically presented to the public or used in the static models used to argue for free-trade agreements. Also note that these are actually args against *deindustrialization* not free trade per se.
Personally, my response to these arguments would be crushing what's left of unions, deregulation in certain areas, and trying to strangle the worthless parts of higher ed rather than tariffs.
The Immigration Act of 1990, which greatly increased skilled immigration to the US (in part by creating the H-1B visa), led native-born Americans to shift out of STEM and into marketing and management, thus de-skilling the native-born American workforce.
In the same way that a country that receives immense quantities of free food is not likely to have a great agricultural sector, skilled immigration causes 'skill shortages' by reducing the incentive for natives to acquire said skills.
Does it matter if all technical jobs in America are done by Americans or foreigners? I think yes. First, obvious national security argument. Second, the cultural effects of math and tech being a foreign thing are awful. Third, a lot of wasted potential in native-born Americans.
Paper on the decline of US manufacturing employment. I believe it illustrates some well-known limits of macro statistics. First, the fall in manufacturing employment 1980-2000 was illusory, just factories hiring temps through contractors being counted as 'services' employment.
Then, between 2000 and 2007 US manufacturing employment really did collapse, across all subsectors, far more than in any other major economy. The number of manufacturing establishments also fell.
An anomaly: manufacturing share of GDP is plummeting, but real GDP in manufacturing is keeping pace with broader growth. How? Answer: price deflators in computers and electronics are very large. If you exclude computers, you do so manufacturing GDP stagnating.
Thread with excerpts from Gail Heriot's "Title VII Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal". The argument is very simple: everything has disparate impact; therefore disparate impact doctrine gives the EEOC effectively unlimited arbitrary power.
They use this power poorly. For example, the EEOC requires employers hire criminals on the grounds that African-Americans are more likely to be criminals, therefore not hiring criminals is racist.
Disparate impact has also been used to overturn the plain text of Title VII, which bans racial discrimination, to allow for affirmative action (racial discrimination against whites).