Reparations: Let's have a serious talk.

[Ana the Ist]

I'm sorry, but are you really going with something similar to "WHERE WILL IT END?!!"

No....I'm just curious about what it is we are trying to achieve. For example....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/DE57705D-9DC6-4D19-8077-89F8AAA4FB5E

There's all kinds of unfair biases....are we also going to somehow alter interviews so you won't be able to see the person interviewed? Perhaps use robotic speech software to ensure fairness between men and women? How would this affect jobs where....you know....your appearance and or social skills might matter?

 

[LoAmmi]

No....I'm just curious about what it is we are trying to achieve. For example....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/DE57705D-9DC6-4D19-8077-89F8AAA4FB5E

There's all kinds of unfair biases....are we also going to somehow alter interviews so you won't be able to see the person interviewed? Perhaps use robotic speech software to ensure fairness between men and women? How would this affect jobs where....you know....your appearance and or social skills might matter?

I've only advocated what I've said. I think it's unfair if a person doesn't get a call when they have equal qualifications to another person. Yes, yes, I know, "life isn't fair" or whatever, but something as stupid as the name on a page shouldn't be a determining factor. To me, again, that is not getting in the race. I reject your previous change to my analogy. It is not apt.

 

[Skewpoint]

I've only advocated what I've said. I think it's unfair if a person doesn't get a call when they have equal qualifications to another person. Yes, yes, I know, "life isn't fair" or whatever, but something as stupid as the name on a page shouldn't be a determining factor. To me, again, that is not getting in the race. I reject your previous change to my analogy. It is not apt.

If I had to make his analogy more apt, it would be that your competition got to pick the Jockies for all the horses, and deliberately give you the fattest, tallest one. Now argue that it's fair from there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've only advocated what I've said. I think it's unfair if a person doesn't get a call when they have equal qualifications to another person. Yes, yes, I know, "life isn't fair" or whatever, but something as stupid as the name on a page shouldn't be a determining factor. To me, again, that is not getting in the race. I reject your previous change to my analogy. It is not apt.

I agree....picking who or who not to call back based on a name is stupid.

I would also feel comfortable about saying that height, weight, race, beauty, gender, sex, accent, tone of voice, color of clothing, and alllllll the other factors which really shouldn't be factors....are stupid reasons for hiring or not hiring someone.

Perhaps we can fix some....but it seems like we have to deny employers all this information which is readily available to the public, and furthermore end up affecting people's lives in myriad ways that have nothing to do with employment.

It seems like an endless cycle of evaluating the ways that "life isn't fair" and just finding new ways that "life isn't fair" to fix....and to what end? In the hopes that it's finally fair one day? Or just no longer unfair against yourself?

How about this....if an employer thinks it's important to not require names, then good for them....they can let applicants know they don't require names. I wouldn't be surprised if I learned though....years later....that those same employers unfairly hired more people who did give their names because they unconsciously trusted those applicants more than the ones who didn't give names.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Best piece I've seen on reparations so far...