[Denial]

http://www.guardian..../16/race.gender

Excerpt said:

White men could be legally blocked from jobs or promotions under controversial government plans to help women and black employees achieve equality.

Employers would be allowed to give jobs to qualified minority candidates in preference to other candidates under a change in discrimination law being drawn up by the Equalities Minister, Harriet Harman. The 'positive action' tactic, already used in the United States, has been a legal minefield in the UK and Harman's plans are likely to upset MPs who believe that merit alone should determine who is hired.

Excerpt said:

The positive discrimination plan would apply only in cases where two equally qualified candidates were after the same post, allowing the employer to tip the balance in favour of the minority candidate on grounds of race or gender.

Even if you choose to ignore this entire proposal is an oxymoron in and of itself, this is political correctness gone wrong, and the worst case of 'white guilt' in a long time. 'Positive Action,' 'Affirmative Action,' whatever you wish to call it, simply does not work. Equality will not be reached until both genders and all races are treated equally under the law. It won't appear from one group being shot in the leg, while another is given a two mile head-start. I'd imagine that this would be quite offensive to other races, too, as it suggests that someone who isn't white can only be successful by being hand-fed.

Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Revanche: 18 March 2008 - 08:28 AM

[Xiao Weng]

The best way to ensure that those who qualify for the job get it is to have blind recruitment. Only show the skills and education of the applicant, leave name, age, gender, and race out of it. Only reveal whom was chosen once the hiring has been done.

[Anglo-fuhrer]

Xiao Weng, on Mar 18 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

The best way to ensure that those who qualify for the job get it is to have blind recruitment. Only show the skills and education of the applicant, leave name, age, gender, and race out of it. Only reveal whom was chosen once the hiring has been done.

QFT
Exactly, pure meritocracy is as "fair" as it gets. Somebody will argue that ethnic minorities don't get equal access to education, but in the UK that's just not true. At least on ethnic terms. Socio-economic is another matter.

[Xiao Weng]

Anglo-fuhrer, on Mar 18 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

QFT
Exactly, pure meritocracy is as "fair" as it gets. Somebody will argue that ethnic minorities don't get equal access to education, but in the UK that's just not true. At least on ethnic terms. Socio-economic is another matter.

Even in terms of education, the GPA and SAT/ACT scored will provide outlets for those students who do not have the economic means to attend college in the U.S. Maintain meritocracy in education and those that do well in school will continue to do well, no matter their gender or race.

[Anglo-fuhrer]

You know, since the UK pretty much abandoned grammar schools, I would not be suprised if the US actually have more mechanisms for lower income children to progress and attain traditionally better performing education establishments.

[SoxNation]

Anglo-fuhrer, on Mar 18 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

QFT
Exactly, pure meritocracy is as "fair" as it gets. Somebody will argue that ethnic minorities don't get equal access to education, but in the UK that's just not true. At least on ethnic terms. Socio-economic is another matter.

thats really how it is anywhere...


people call it racism, but it's really lack of education and workplace skills... it so happens to be that a majority of the lower end socio-economic side tends to be minorities.


but any black kid with good parents, and access to education is going to do just fine and get that good job, so it's not racism.

[Czar Garrett]

AA always infuriates me, and I get even more irked when minorities support it.

Do you know what AA means if you're a minority? It means you are inferior, a lesser being- and you need government assistance to get a job.


The fact that this is even being considered as a viable option by any government anymore is a shame.

[Smallfrog]

Xiao Weng, on Mar 18 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

The best way to ensure that those who qualify for the job get it is to have blind recruitment. Only show the skills and education of the applicant, leave name, age, gender, and race out of it. Only reveal whom was chosen once the hiring has been done.

An application form doesn't mean much. Face to face interviews are the best way to find out if the person has the skills they are talking about, or are making stuff up. (It happens more than you would think) And as soon as that happens, gender, age, race etc all become pretty obvious.

[Xiao Weng]

Smallfrog, on Mar 18 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

An application form doesn't mean much. Face to face interviews are the best way to find out if the person has the skills they are talking about, or are making stuff up. (It happens more than you would think) And as soon as that happens, gender, age, race etc all become pretty obvious.

That defeats the purpose. If there's perceived discrimination, then having a face-to-face interview is going to extend that perceived discrimination if someone doesn't get the job.

[Smallfrog]

Xiao Weng, on Mar 18 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

That defeats the purpose. If there's perceived discrimination, then having a face-to-face interview is going to extend that perceived discrimination if someone doesn't get the job.

However, without interviews, the chances of getting someone totally incompetent is increased massively, and the person best suited to the job may not get it.

[Germanic Republic]

Smallfrog, on Mar 18 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

However, without interviews, the chances of getting someone totally incompetent is increased massively, and the person best suited to the job may not get it.

So the question is:

Should we trade off workplace efficiency and quality to achieve racial and sexual equality?

[Smallfrog]

Germanic Republic, on Mar 18 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

So the question is:

Should we trade off workplace efficiency and quality to achieve racial and sexual equality?

Not from the standpoint the UK is currently in.

[Anglo-fuhrer]

I thought the biggest argument for AA came from ethnic minorities not even clearing the initial sift, not the interview phase. Blind recruiting would solve that problem.

[SoxNation]

Anglo-fuhrer, on Mar 18 2008, 12:11 PM, said:

I thought the biggest argument for AA came from ethnic minorities not even clearing the initial sift, not the interview phase. Blind recruiting would solve that problem.

i have yet to have seen a big problem with racism in hiring practices.


everytime you ask for a stat on it, they point out the percentage of white people with certain jobs, certain incomes, and the percentage of black people.

that does not prove racism, it's more likely to prove socio-economic statistics, i promise if you ran numbers on people from certain backgrounds, certain educations, you'd see about the same percentages.


it's just that higher levels of minorities are in those lower socio-economic groups.

so the solution is not to force an unqualified person into a job, but to help make them more qualified.

[Hertzy Scowicz]

Smallfrog, on Mar 18 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

Not from the standpoint the UK is currently in.

Wouldn't that be one of the "side-benefits" for this proposed legislation? Somehow picking the person with the right color and/or placement of reproductive organs instead of the most qualified person sounds like a good pathway to reduced efficiency.

(Note, the article says "qualified", which I'm interpreting as "qualified for the job", not as "as qualified as the next guy")

[Leguaris]

I like Obama's answer to this question (37 minutes, but it's well worth the time): "A More Perfect Union"

This post has been edited by Leguaris: 18 March 2008 - 12:41 PM

[Earogema]

Xiao Weng, on Mar 18 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

The best way to ensure that those who qualify for the job get it is to have blind recruitment. Only show the skills and education of the applicant, leave name, age, gender, and race out of it. Only reveal whom was chosen once the hiring has been done.

This would work if minorities always had access to the same education as whites. Not happening yet, and probably won't happen in the States for a long time. This is a nice plan, but remember, the whole reason colleges have Affirmative Action to allow minority kids to actually get into respectable colleges, who will accept them, regardless of the area they are from.

I do agree however, it shouldn't be done by race, but by socio-economic status. The problem with that however, is that if you go do that, you'll be basically admitting you are purposely employing somebody less qualified (course, they couldn't really help it).

This post has been edited by MegaAros: 18 March 2008 - 12:32 PM

[haby112]

Education, or the desire of, seems to be the biggest problem where I live. The minorities at my school seem to be more interested in physical carriers, like basketball and football, or rapping contracts then actual hard work with good pay. My school is about 76% black and 66% of those ppl ditch at least one class a day.
That alone explains to me why the world of business is what it is.

[Opethian]

MegaAros, on Mar 18 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

This would work if minorities THE POOR AND WORKING CLASS always had access to the same education as whites THE RICH AND UPPER-CLASS.

Fixed. Plenty of poor whites suffer from terrible educations.

[SoxNation]

Opethian, on Mar 18 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

Fixed. Plenty of poor whites suffer from terrible educations.

exactly, if you want to make the arguement, make it based on class, not race.