And Back to Racial Discrimination

[GreekOrthodox]

Sounds like what you actually need is what my company called a "business analyst"--the tech-savvy, non-developer bridge between the two.

Essentially that's where it sits but within a hospital framework. We have a bunch of tech-savvy nurses running these hospital systems. I came from the IT side of things but I'm unusual for the position as I'm an IT guy who LIKES people.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Is it wrong for someone to say "I would like a diverse workforce to reach a diverse world?" Economics is a global game now.

No, it's not wrong. That's not the same thing. In Australia its quite normal for people to add a language qualification to required skills. The way things are going, Mandarin will be mandatory. About the only way to be bilingual here is to be born into a migrant family. The education system does not even teach English. Business needs to be free to go about it the way it chooses. If they get it wrong, they will pay.

 

[rturner76]

Spanish has become a requirement for some customer service jobs in the USA too. Companies usually do what they want. It's just the company in the OP made a conscious decision to hire a more diverse group of employees. They weren't forced into it.

 

[stevil]

Nope. Did you not read the original post article?

I read your post, you did not refer to the article, you said typical business practice.

 

[RDKirk]

I read your post, you did not refer to the article, you said typical business practice.

My post does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the thread of all my other posts.

 

[bekkilyn]

My post does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the thread of all my other posts.

I suppose cherry-picking isn't limited only to scripture.

 

[HantsUK]

I worked for an Israeli company. We could sell the US version to the Muslim countries, but our team had to get new passports if they had been in Israel so they could travel to some ME countries. That got interesting for them.

I had colleagues who had two passports to allow travel to countries that objected to each other. A second passport is useful if you apply for visa but still need to travel to other countries while waiting.

The Israeli passport control were also willing to stamp a piece of paper within your passport instead of the passport itself. You just need to remember to remove it when visiting Muslim countries. Do not know if this is still the case. But that doesn't help when leaving Israel at a land border, as the other country's passport stamp would show that you had left Israel.

Having dual (or triple) nationality is useful for this.

 

[Blade]

I can still see the mans face on TV saying one day .. his hope " I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Thank and PRAISE GOD allot of company's don't go by how the color of your skin. Not all are haha woke

 

[RDKirk]

I can still see the mans face on TV saying one day .. his hope " I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Thank and PRAISE GOD allot of company's don't go by how the color of your skin. Not all are haha woke

All of a sudden a lot of people want to quote that one line but studiously ignore everything else he had to say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All of a sudden a lot of people want to quote that one line but studiously ignore everything else he had to say.

It's the basis of an idea known as "colorblind". It's not literal of course, but it is an aspiration of treating people the same way regardless of race. That's to say that we should not treat race as a factor in the way we treat people.

The only other real option is called "race essentialism" and that's where we look at race, make assumptions about it, and factor those assumptions into the way we treat people.

Race essentialism doesn't have a good track record. It's a big part of slavery, Jim Crow, the Chinese exclusion act, Japanese internment, eugenics, realistically every racial hate group, and it's not unique to the US. The Rwandan genocide included the idea that certain physical characteristics could differentiate between Hutu and Tutsi.

Every group that has ever insisted upon race essentialism believed they could correctly describe characteristics of race....and used that belief to justify injustice.

It's taken several hundred years to get to the point where a majority could understand how wrong this was an at least begin aspirations to a colorblind society and it's pretty odd to see that thrown aside so quickly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's what is classified as systemic racism rather than blatant racism, the person doing it isn't necessarily racist, and they aren't doing it in order to benefit or repress a certain race. But the end result is that the white male demographic ultimately benefits and the non white male demographics are ultimately left out in the cold.

People don't consider, is what I am doing fair based on demographics or is it disadvantaging some?
Instead they innocently conclude, well this person came highly recommended, they have the necessary skills, the person that referred them said they are honest and great to work with, so I'd be a fool not to hire them and so yet another white gets a job where other people from other demographics weren't even considered.

@stevil we've never had an openly atheist president.

Would it be reasonable to point that out, point out the blatantly admitted bias against atheists in society, and declare that every believer and anyone who expresses any spiritual beliefs whatsoever benefits from a "believer privilege" that keeps people like me from running the world?

It's a concept that is so beyond stupid I don't know how so many fall for it.

We consider people innocent until proven guilty for a reason....basic logic.

It's impossible to prove a negative. Once you judge someone as guilty without evidence of guilt and someone a victim without any evidence of a crime...you can't possibly disprove it.

Unless everyone has been asleep for the past few decades, you can definitely prove racial discrimination. Take the evidence, go to court, seek justice.

You may not win...but you may just be imagining discrimination that isn't happening.

For all the guff the founders get it's almost depressing to think that somehow they were able to understand this centuries ago but the average person today isn't quite capable of putting it together.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's insane. Reverse discrimination is still racist.

Just call it racism. The people doing and supporting this are racists. It doesn't matter what definition you go by....they all.work.

Are they negatively judging people by race? Yup. That definitely fits.

Are they using power and privilege to racially discriminate? There's no way a guy applying for a job has more power than the guy setting hiring guidelines. That definition works.

Is it a system of laws or policies that treat people negatively by race? Yup...it's also structural racism.

These are racists, they fit every definition of racism anyone has come up with. We can say it's systemic racism too but that's an assumption of racism without any evidence of actual racial discrimination. There's no need to assume when you can actually point at it and the people supporting it.

 

[stevil]

@stevil we've never had an openly atheist president.

That is the problem with a voting system, you will mostly get majority rules.
I don't accept that a society should be based on majority rules.
For example, I don't consider gay marriage to be something that the people should vote on.
Government should have some limits.
They shouldn't be able to outlaw something, just because the majority wants it outlawed.
They should instead have to prove that something is dangerous to society otherwise they should not be able to stop consenting adults from doing things that don't harm others or society.

The president thing,
You have never had a Muslim president, never had a Hindu president, never had an American Indian president, never had a Mexican president, never had a woman president.
This is a shameful aspect of USA. It wasn't long ago that you had racial segregation, and before that slavery and before that the conquering and rounding up of the native American Indians. There is much for USA to be shameful of.

But not much can be done about it other than time. As the years go on USA will become less and less Christian, less and less religious. It's happening all over the world and although USA is slow to move with the times, they are getting there eventually.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is the problem with a voting system, you will mostly get majority rules.

Actually it's not a problem at all. I'm not entitled to anything because I'm an atheist. Nobody owes me a thing.

I don't accept that a society should be based on majority rules.

Then move to N Korea, learn what minority rule is like (it's a minority of 1 there) and lemme know how that works out.

They should instead have to prove that something is dangerous to society otherwise they should not be able to stop consenting adults from doing things that don't harm others or society.

Things that deny people equal opportunities and rights by denying the basic dignity of every human being?

Great point. If you genuinely believe that, why are you defending racial discrimination?

 

[RDKirk]

It's the basis of an idea known as "colorblind". It's not literal of course, but it is an aspiration of treating people the same way regardless of race. That's to say that we should not treat race as a factor in the way we treat people.

The only other real option is called "race essentialism" and that's where we look at race, make assumptions about it, and factor those assumptions into the way we treat people.

Race essentialism doesn't have a good track record. It's a big part of slavery, Jim Crow, the Chinese exclusion act, Japanese internment, eugenics, realistically every racial hate group, and it's not unique to the US. The Rwandan genocide included the idea that certain physical characteristics could differentiate between Hutu and Tutsi.

Every group that has ever insisted upon race essentialism believed they could correctly describe characteristics of race....and used that belief to justify injustice.

It's taken several hundred years to get to the point where a majority could understand how wrong this was an at least begin aspirations to a colorblind society and it's pretty odd to see that thrown aside so quickly.

Society will never be "colorblind." Of course they see it. They're going to see it as a point of aesthetics, like hair and eye color, if nothing else.

The issue is how they consider it, what they with it, how they allow it to affect their judgment.

I'll raise an eyebrow at anyone who claims he is. That's like someone saying they don't see beauty. Saying that he doesn't see it only means he has not given any consideration to how it's affecting his judgment.

 

[RDKirk]

That is the problem with a voting system, you will mostly get majority rules.
I don't accept that a society should be based on majority rules.
For example, I don't consider gay marriage to be something that the people should vote on.
Government should have some limits.
They shouldn't be able to outlaw something, just because the majority wants it outlawed.
They should instead have to prove that something is dangerous to society otherwise they should not be able to stop consenting adults from doing things that don't harm others or society.

Actually, there are limits, which is why the US is technically a constitutional representative republic, not actually a democracy.

 

[Sketcher]

One of world's largest investment firms will need permission to hire White men

Leaders at one of the largest investment firms in the world, State Street Global Advisors, will need to ask permission to hire White men as it rolls out a diversity hiring initiative.

Literal double standards for white men and monetary incentives to not hire them.

The firm will still hire White men, McNicholas said, but recruiters are required to show that women and minority applicants were interviewed by the panels.

Does anyone actually see this as a good way to improve upon the days when racial discrimination was the norm? By making racial discrimination the norm?

Colleges and universities do this already with their hiring practices.

What happened when I was working in that environment was, our department needed a new administrator, and my boss who was part of that process was talking about how we'd had a good candidate, but they had to keep the position open since not enough women and minorities were applying. And it was kept open for months, and they didn't get enough interest from minorities and women in that position, and so they eventually went with the candidate from before, who turned out to be a great fit. With a greater backlog from that time we had to wait. Sitting on this for months benefited no one, and it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been a white male.

This of course is for those that get the jobs. Sometimes, white males don't get the jobs solely because they didn't tick that diversity checkbox. Now, they might not end up on the street, but they will often be embittered against this kind of hiring policy. The most angry and vocal opponents of affirmative action that I have come across have been such people.

 

[Whyayeman]

Sometimes, white males don't get the jobs solely because they didn't tick that diversity checkbox.

I am not clear that such a thing could ever be substantiated. Maybe overlooked candidates believe it.

What do you think when you hear this: 'I was the best qualified but a [black/man/woman/younger/prettier/known-to the-panel*] person was given the post.'

I think - sour grapes.

* circle the one which applies

 

[Ana the Ist]

Society will never be "colorblind." Of course they see it. They're going to see it as a point of aesthetics, like hair and eye color, if nothing else.

When I see people say this its like they don't understand the concept. No one is actually saying that they don't see the color of someone's skin.

Reread what I wrote.

The issue is how they consider it, what they with it, how they allow it to affect their judgment.

They shouldn't though. I can't look at a person's skin and know anything about them. They could be a descendant of slavery...they could have come here from the UK on a work visa yesterday. To assume things about them because of skin color would be dumb.

I'll raise an eyebrow at anyone who claims he is. That's like someone saying they don't see beauty. Saying that he doesn't see it only means he has not given any consideration to how it's affecting his judgment.

Well that's a problem then RDKirk. You're saying that you agree with every racist person who ever thought we can't possibly ever avoid such judgement. That's race essentialism.

I don't have to assume what a lot of people believe about white people....they're saying it. I suppose that logically I and every other white person should do whatever we can to support candidates who are willing to do whatever they can to benefit white people. You're saying there's nothing inherently immoral about Jim Crow. You're saying there's nothing inherently wrong with white supremacy.

If we cannot possibly avoid racial judgements then that's the only logical conclusion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Colleges and universities do this already with their hiring practices.

What happened when I was working in that environment was, our department needed a new administrator, and my boss who was part of that process was talking about how we'd had a good candidate, but they had to keep the position open since not enough women and minorities were applying. And it was kept open for months, and they didn't get enough interest from minorities and women in that position, and so they eventually went with the candidate from before, who turned out to be a great fit. With a greater backlog from that time we had to wait. Sitting on this for months benefited no one, and it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been a white male.

This of course is for those that get the jobs. Sometimes, white males don't get the jobs solely because they didn't tick that diversity checkbox. Now, they might not end up on the street, but they will often be embittered against this kind of hiring policy. The most angry and vocal opponents of affirmative action that I have come across have been such people.

People forget this when they say we need to atone for the inequity of the past.

We've had 4 decades of affirmative action. Preferences for minorities and blacks in particular in both universities and job hiring.

It wasn't an explicitly stated advantage. It didn't achieve the magical level of equity people seem to claim to want. There's no real reason to believe this will either. To continue down this path is going to be pretty destructive.