Racial Discrimination

[Batman]

http://creativeaccess.org.uk/

 

The owner of this company was on the radio earlier admitting that 'white people' would not be allowed to apply via his organisation.

 

not quite fair. but hey ho. way of the world

[Weston Super Saint]

Presumably it would fall under 'genuine occupational requirement' and would NOT be racial or any other kind of discrimination : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

[Micky]

Presumably it would fall under 'genuine occupational requirement' and would NOT be racial or any other kind of discrimination : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

 

First off, I didn't even try to understand the legislation - too complex for me I'm afraid. But looking at the positions advertised, I can see no reason as to why they would not be open to people of all ethnicities - there appear to be no valid reasons as to why the positions are to be filled by "UK nationals from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority." I would be quite interested to hear the BBC's reasoning for this to be honest.

 

That said, the website does make it abundantly clear that it is working to "provide opportunities for paid internships in the creative industries for young people of graduate (or equivalent standard) from under-represented black, Asian and other non-white minority ethnic backgrounds".

 

However - this still sits a little uneasy with me, what happened to hiring the 'best qualified person' for the job irrespective and any E & D protected characteristic that they may possess?

[ScepticalStan]

However - this still sits a little uneasy with me, what happened to hiring the 'best qualified person' for the job irrespective and any E & D protected characteristic that they may possess?

 

The best qualified person kept being a white guy, and it was realised that transparently fair and equal hiring processes do not, by default, automatically result in a workforce that obligingly matches the demographic spread of the overall population.

[Micky]

The best qualified person kept being a white guy, and it was realised that transparently fair and equal hiring processes do not, by default, automatically result in a workforce that obligingly matches the demographic spread of the overall population.

 

And so this is good reasoning (fair and legal) for the agency to apply it's "no whites" policy for all of the positions advertised...???

[Whitey Grandad]

All discrimination is wrong. In my view there is no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. As long as people continue to differentiate between people on the basis of their ethnicity there will never be an integrated society. Surely it is time that people stopped classifying individuals on the basis of their skin colour.

[buctootim]

And so this is good reasoning (fair and legal) for the agency to apply it's "no whites" policy for all of the positions advertised...???

 

Err, yes. Its set up to address the fact that the ethnic makeup of employees in the media doesnt reflect that in the population as a whole. It would be a bit ironic if a scheme to address lack of minority ethnic entrants to the BBC was filled up with whites.

 

If you want a society that isnt like Molenbeek its important that people have access to employment. Remember these are unpaid internships, not paid jobs.

[Micky]

Err, yes. Its set up to address the fact that the ethnic makeup of employees in the media doesnt reflect that in the population as a whole. It would be a bit ironic if a scheme to address lack of minority ethnic entrants to the BBC was filled up with whites.

 

If you want a society that isnt like Molenbeek its important that people have access to employment. Remember these are unpaid internships, not paid jobs.

 

So are we therefore saying that because of the fact that the ethnic makeup of employees in the media doesn't reflect the population as a whole, that this would indicate that the BBC has, in the past, discriminated against the black, Asian and non-white ethnic minority, by giving jobs that should have gone to them, to the majority white ethnicity?

 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic with this issue, but simply trying to see why 'the best person for the job' is not being considered.

 

I fully understand that these are internships, but by definition they are opportunities that could very well lead to full time jobs.

[holepuncture]

This type of positive discrimination is widespread amongst big corpos, as they get shafted by the government if they don't tick the boxes and fulfil quotas (of all backgrounds).

 

Big business can carry the dead-weight so it's no bother to them to hire poor quality staff (of any background), it's the smaller firms that are big enough to fall onto the goverment radar, but not big enough to carry poor staff.

 

The best qualified person kept being a white guy, and it was realised that transparently fair and equal hiring processes do not, by default, automatically result in a workforce that obligingly matches the demographic spread of the overall population.

 

 

All discrimination is wrong. In my view there is no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. As long as people continue to differentiate between people on the basis of their ethnicity there will never be an integrated society. Surely it is time that people stopped classifying individuals on the basis of their skin colour.

 

Absolutely, but as ScepticalStan mentioned above, if you do that, you only end up employing the person most skilled, qualified and suitable to do the job, which happens to be the indigenous population.

 

Err, yes. Its set up to address the fact that the ethnic makeup of employees in the media doesnt reflect that in the population as a whole. It would be a bit ironic if a scheme to address lack of minority ethnic entrants to the BBC was filled up with whites.

 

If you want a society that isnt like Molenbeek its important that people have access to employment. Remember these are unpaid internships, not paid jobs.

 

PMSL, poor example IMO, the people of Molenbeek have no intention of working, contributing and integrating with society, I'd say the total opposite.

[ScepticalStan]

And so this is good reasoning (fair and legal) for the agency to apply it's "no whites" policy for all of the positions advertised...???

 

Goodness no. It's grotesquely unjust, but that is the cold, hard truth I'm afraid.

 

Err, yes. Its set up to address the fact that the ethnic makeup of employees in the media doesnt reflect that in the population as a whole.

 

Aside from the fact that there's no reason to suppose this is either 1) Important and necessary or 2) the case with the BBC in a 87% white country you should realise that almost no profession, almost anywhere in the world, has a demographic make-up that reflects the overall population.

 

 

If you want a society that isnt like Molenbeek its important that people have access to employment. Remember these are unpaid internships, not paid jobs.

 

This is a rather damning indictment of how you view ethnic minorities - that you think they're so naturally violent, tribal and quick-to-temper that we have to overpromote them into positions they're less than qualified for partly because there's no chance they could achieve such a position on their own unassisted, and partly lest they descend into mob violence and looting.

 

I also have to take you up on the bolded. No-one is arguing that ethnic minorities ought not to have "access to employment" - that's a complete straw-man argument of what people are taking issue with - which is that white people are being overtly discriminated against to ensure that a particular candidate has the right set of genitalia and/or skin pigmentation.

 

Here's an idea....how about we just have fair and equal hiring processes that treat every candidate, male/female/black/white equally and hire the best one for the job?

[buctootim]

So are we therefore saying that because of the fact that the ethnic makeup of employees in the media doesn't reflect the population as a whole, that this would indicate that the BBC has, in the past, discriminated against the black, Asian and non-white ethnic minority, by giving jobs that should have gone to them, to the majority white ethnicity?

 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic with this issue, but simply trying to see why 'the best person for the job' is not being considered.

 

I fully understand that these are internships, but by definition they are opportunities that could very well lead to full time jobs.

 

I think the its set up more to get more people from minority ethnic backgrounds seeing the possibility of a career in the BBC and applying for jobs in the first place. Its isnt about giving jobs to weaker candidates, its about increasing the volume of job applications. I would hope they also have a programme to attract more people from a working class background, as its also seen as very middle class.

[derry]

Do ethnic minorities due to quota requirements receive redundancy protection or is it worst out/ last in first out?

[ericofarabia]

 

No-one is arguing that ethnic minorities ought not to have "access to employment" - that's a complete straw-man argument of what people are taking issue with - which is that white people are being overtly discriminated against to ensure that a particular candidate has the right set of genitalia and/or skin pigmentation.

 

Here's an idea....how about we just have fair and equal hiring processes that treat every candidate, male/female/black/white equally and hire the best one for the job?

 

Slightly diverging, but still on positive discrimination for minorities ... one of my son's mates from Uni, after graduating applied for several jobs, but didn't get offered any interviews, despite having good grades. So on the next few applications he ticked the sexual preference as Homosexual (why do they need to ask these things on an application form anyway?) .... and lo and behold he got offered Interviews and eventually a job. Luckily he didn't have to demonstrate how gay he was!!

 

Madness.

[hutch]

Positive discrimination is the promotion of mediocrity. You inevitably end up with Diane Abbott.

[ashnats]

I think the reason is that if you leave people to 'judge everyone equally and fairly, regardless of x,y,z', then certainly in a lot of industries, the demographic makeup of your company should represent that of the population as a whole. Unless we are saying, e.g. white men can't jump, black women are all about the booty etc. etc. So the fact that it doesn't, in the vast majority of industries, is indicative that despite best intentions otherwise, there is an inherent racism issue. Education and tolerance in society can help to improve this, but it's naive to think this is enough. If you really want to enforce equality, you need to correct for that inherent racism by legislation, e.g. quotas or the rooney rule, etc.

 

Everyone's a little bit racist. Sometimes. Doesn't mean we go around committing hate crimes. Look around and you will find noone is really colour blind. Maybe it's a fact we all should face - everyone makes judgments based on race.

[Whitey Grandad]

Positive discrimination is the promotion of mediocrity. You inevitably end up with Diane Abbott.

 

That's worse than mediocre.

[ScepticalStan]

I think the reason is that if you leave people to 'judge everyone equally and fairly, regardless of x,y,z', then certainly in a lot of industries, the demographic makeup of your company should represent that of the population as a whole. So the fact that it doesn't, in the vast majority of industries, is indicative that despite best intentions otherwise, there is an inherent racism issue..

 

NO. NO. NO. NO

 

This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.

 

The fact that there are demographic disparities (in a variety of things, not just the job market), is NOT somehow evidence that these disparities MUST be as a result of discrimination. That's just a conclusion people jump to without a shred of evidence.

 

Watch. This. Video.

[ashnats]

NO. NO. NO. NO

 

This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.

 

The fact that there are demographic disparities (in a variety of things, not just the job market), is NOT somehow evidence that these disparities MUST be as a result of discrimination. That's just a conclusion people jump to without a shred of evidence.

 

Watch. This. Video.

 

I think the situation in the US at the date of that video is slightly different to the situation now in Southampton. Taking Science as an example - there is no reason why the workforce should not mirror the population demographic for postgraduate students of Science degrees, (average it over the last 15-20 years, if you think there have been recent changes). Educational opportunity is identical, qualifications identical, and yet the workforce is not indicative of that...

[holepuncture]

Do ethnic minorities due to quota requirements receive redundancy protection or is it worst out/ last in first out?

 

Double positive discrimination? I can't imagine a corporation lasting long by only keeping the deadwood.

 

I think the reason is that if you leave people to 'judge everyone equally and fairly, regardless of x,y,z', then certainly in a lot of industries, the demographic makeup of your company should represent that of the population as a whole. Unless we are saying, e.g. white men can't jump, black women are all about the booty etc. etc. So the fact that it doesn't, in the vast majority of industries, is indicative that despite best intentions otherwise, there is an inherent racism issue. Education and tolerance in society can help to improve this, but it's naive to think this is enough. If you really want to enforce equality, you need to correct for that inherent racism by legislation, e.g. quotas or the rooney rule, etc.

 

Everyone's a little bit racist. Sometimes. Doesn't mean we go around committing hate crimes. Look around and you will find noone is really colour blind. Maybe it's a fact we all should face - everyone makes judgments based on race.

 

Lol, total nonsense, the work of a yoghurt knitter from cafe liberal.

 

It's all about stock, background, heritage, education, social circle. In a global capitalist country, besieged by multiculturalism & enrichment, you will always have groups that perform better than other groups. Have a look at the IQ average table, the average from the UK is massively higher than Ghana for example:

 

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

 

We live in a meritocracy, we shouldn't be 'enforcing equality', as that's essentially lowering standards and ultimately a race to the bottom

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Ah but some would argue (with some justification) that the IQ tests are weighted towards Western societes.

[Bath Saint]

Double positive discrimination? I can't imagine a corporation lasting long by only keeping the deadwood.

 

 

 

Lol, total nonsense, the work of a yoghurt knitter from cafe liberal.

 

It's all about stock, background, heritage, education, social circle. In a global capitalist country, besieged by multiculturalism & enrichment, you will always have groups that perform better than other groups. Have a look at the IQ average table, the average from the UK is massively higher than Ghana for example:

 

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

 

We live in a meritocracy, we shouldn't be 'enforcing equality', as that's essentially lowering standards and ultimately a race to the bottom

 

 

Lol, can't believe you're claiming racial differences in IQ. The 'research' this is based on was undertaken by the largely discredited Professor Richard Lynn (who famously claim men have higher cognitive abilities than women and also supports eugenics). The 'research' behind this has been critiqued on a number of points but primarily over the representativeness and generalisability of the IQ studies. Also, Lynn was very selective in his review of the extant literature...

 

One point of critique is that Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s estimate of average IQ among Africans is primarily based on convenience samples, and not on samples carefully selected to be representative of a given, targeted, population

 

Source: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf

[ScepticalStan]

Taking Science as an example - there is no reason why the workforce should not mirror the population demographic for postgraduate students of Science degrees, (average it over the last 15-20 years, if you think there have been recent changes). Educational opportunity is identical, qualifications identical, and yet the workforce is not indicative of that...

 

So?

 

There are tonne of potential explanations that one could cook up to 'fill that gap'. Maybe there's a cultural difference in the importance of science in terms of various demographics? (In fact, I'm quite convinced there is - betcha east-Asians are overrepped in science for that matter).

 

Point is this: pointing to a demographic gap, wondering why that gap is there, and then jumping to the conclusion (without a shred of evidence) that said gap MUST be caused by discriminatory hiring practices is logically no different from saying that such a gap MUST be down to differences in average intelligence between races. Its just an explanation plucked out of thin air that 'fits the bill' but actually has no evidence for it.

 

Its a little like the earliest religious people who wondered how it was the sun rose in the sky every morning to grant them light and warmth and happened to leave the sky at just the time when they needed darkness and cool air to sleep - and so figured that the only explanation was that the sun had a will of its own and was interested in looking after humans.

 

If you have evidence for discrimination - show us this evidence.