Do you belong to any minority group that has faced widespread discrimination? (Israel, Pelosi)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,031,596 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
So based on that logic, will a black interviewer be more likely to want to hire a black person?
I think he is talking about how all the CEO's and successful folks are predominantly white so it's only fair that a minority would get selected over a white person if all is equal.
I think he is talking about how all the CEO's and successful folks are predominantly white so it's only fair that a minority would get selected over a white person if all is equal.
Why not? Shouldn't minorities have a shot at it too?
I think he is talking about how all the CEO's and successful folks are predominantly white so it's only fair that a minority would get selected over a white person if all is equal.
Not disputing the situation..only your terms. If you've already determined who you'll hire ahead of time, given their qualifications are the same, then that isn't "equal". It's favoring one over the other. If two equally-qualified applicants of two races were each considered for a position, and it was decided by the "flip of a coin"...or by "cutting the cards"..the THAT would be 'equal'. Hiring one over the other, because OTHER people are 'disadvantaged'....or OTHER people 'are all successful', is an arbitrary decision to 'discriminate'. It may be seen as NECCESSARY..and it may be seen as JUSTIFIED.....but at that particular moment, between these two individuals, things aren't 'equal'.
There may have been PLENTY of 'unequal treatment' in the past (to put it mildly). Perhaps the only way to redress this is to have a little MORE unequal treatment now, under controlled circumstances. And it MAY be for a good cause...and it MAY be for 'the greater good'. But for the individuals involved, it's STILL 'unequal treatment', assuming they both have equal credentials.
Why not? Shouldn't minorities have a shot at it too?
Of course.....but WHICH minorities? In which proportions? For how long? Is it all right if a minority of one race doesn't get hired, as long as he knows a minority of ANOTHER race does? What if a male minority does NOT get a job, but a woman does?
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,031,596 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
Not disputing the situation..only your terms. If you've already determined who you'll hire ahead of time, given their qualifications are the same, then that isn't "equal". It's favoring one over the other. If two equally-qualified applicants of two races were each considered for a position, and it was decided by the "flip of a coin"...or by "cutting the cards"..the THAT would be 'equal'. Hiring one over the other, because OTHER people are 'disadvantaged'....or OTHER people 'are all successful', is an arbitrary decision to 'discriminate'. It may be seen as NECCESSARY..and it may be seen as JUSTIFIED.....but at that particular moment, between these two individuals, things aren't 'equal'.
There may have been PLENTY of 'unequal treatment' in the past (to put it mildly). Perhaps the only way to redress this is to have a little MORE unequal treatment now, under controlled circumstances. And it MAY be for a good cause...and it MAY be for 'the greater good'. But for the individuals involved, it's STILL 'unequal treatment', assuming they both have equal credentials.
I was clarifying what I interpreted another poster's (Mr Sykes) position to be although I don't really agree with racial-based preferences.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,031,596 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSykes
Why not? Shouldn't minorities have a shot at it too?
Most of the places that I've ever worked at had mostly minority employees. Also, most of the supervisors and managers I've worked under were minority as well. I think we came a long way as a nation. There's still some work to be done but racial-based preferences are not a way to go. Discrimination is wrong whether you are black, latino, asian, native American or white. Two wrongs do not make a right.
By the way, if a black person gets chosen over a white person strictly due to affirmative action ... What did the white person do to deserve being discriminated against?
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,031,596 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
Of course.....but WHICH minorities? In which proportions? For how long? Is it all right if a minority of one race doesn't get hired, as long as he knows a minority of ANOTHER race does? What if a male minority does NOT get a job, but a woman does?
Of course.....but WHICH minorities? In which proportions? For how long? Is it all right if a minority of one race doesn't get hired, as long as he knows a minority of ANOTHER race does? What if a male minority does NOT get a job, but a woman does?
Pretty complex subject there.
I'm not even going to begin to pretend I know all the answers, but I will tell you this. I do not believe in artificial quotas, but I do believe that corporations should make a concerted effort so scout for talent from underrepresented communities.
The social dynamics of the corporate environment need to be thoroughly analyzed and evaluated against existing diversity models that have proven successful. Perhaps a diversity workshop of some sorts can enable corporations to gain a better understanding of what the specific needs are and the best way to fulfill them, while keeping an eye on trends in minority recruitment.
Where there is a perceived lack of representation from a particular group, step up your recruitment efforts in that group. Where there is lack of interest, concentrate more of your efforts on the next group, and so forth.
There needs to be a healthy balance struck between equality of opportunity and equality of representation.
Yes they should by all means if they are qualified not because they are a quota to fill.
What if they were equally qualified with their white counterpart, but were preferred because the company needed more minority representation in its workforce?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
