I have trouble believing UA ever believes a Black person getting a job over a white person isn't motivated at least in small part by racial politics. Which is weird, because UA's best friend is probably Black.
JFC, entirely not the point. Feel free to rewrite the question however you want, the point is just a situation where after whatever recruitment processes you want you have two candidates who seem equal apart from: One seems like they would be the more productive of the two on day one. The other seems like they would be the more productive of the two on day 90. It's not a gotcha for the right answer, because the point is that there isn't necessarily a right answer in all situations, and things are more complex than simply being able to pick the best person by predefined objective standards. (The standards all have to be predefined before the process starts, because any you try to introduce later will be biased towards getting the answer gut feel tells you is right)
First, in real life, you are not going to typically get to get people to agree to work a trial set of shifts at AlbertCo. for your own personal evaluation. People have competing jobs out there, and you may or may not have the funds or other wherewithal to have two people filling the single position at one time. Second, I hope you concede that a) in many or most job listings, there are not a ton of objective, impersonal standards available and b) the people who are hiring do not necessarily apply what objective, impersonal data there are. (If you do not, then it for me brings into question your ability to recognize anything close to objective standards). If you make that concession, how is it anything but a fiction that the objectively best person is generally picked for jobs when the process selecting them does not use many (or sometimes any) objective standards?
So... Because you can concoct a hypothetical where it is "impossible" to identify an objectively superior candidate, I must pick them by their intrinsic traits instead of, I dunno, flipping a damned coin or something? Does not follow.
The disparity between what you think they should do and what the actually do is no excuse to force irrelevant details into the situation.
Here's his right-wing Mister Spock mode; then when his sophistry is pulled apart, he'll tell everyone to commit gay acts.
In other words, "don't use reality to point out why I'm wrong. I prefer to use the conditions I specify for my own fantasy realm."
Nope, I didn't say that. This is just establishing that often the whole idea is wrong that you can just objectively identify the best candidate from a checklist.
"Often." Exceptions don't invalidate the concept. It's still the least imperfect in a stable of flawed solutions. A damn sight fairer and more useful than factoring in irrelevant details.
If the concept is "in situations where a simple checklist can objectively determine the best candidates then a simple checklist can objectively determine the best candidates" then...yes? Well done? I've got no idea what it actually is you're arguing against anymore, and I suspect you don't either, other than some DEI strawman you've concocted.
In plainest terms, I'm saying the flaws in objective qualification assessment doesn't justify introducing irrelevant terms like race or sexual orientation.
So then you agree with the principles of DEI. Historically in this country, preference has been given to certain races and orientations (among other demographic categories). Broadly speaking, DEI is about eliminating that leg up for those in historically favored demographic categories, and putting everyone on an equal playing field.
the trouble is you're presuming objectivity in the first place, rather than ingrained prejudices... nobody says you have to hire the diversity applicant, jsut that their diversity can't be the reason you don't. this is built upon documented decades of seeing less qualified pale and male get favoured...
Bingo. Although those of us who have been/are actually involved in hiring have explained this already and he keeps arguing his strawman version.
Sydney Sweeney’s new movie ‘Americana’ bombs at box office Apparently, that's one of the worst movie openings in history.
As someone who has worked his entire adult life with a diverse workforce, I'm curious. Is there really a lot of white only jobs still out there? People are still not being hired because of the color of their skin or their gender? Or is this just a paranoid delusion that its still the 1950s and everyone but white males need to be given special privileges?
In social services the executives tend to skew white outside of ethnocentric organizations, although the 3IC where I work is a Native woman. Our middle management and behind the scenes staff is roughly proportional. Front liners depends on the department... Like the Housing Support team that I'm on is me, two Black women, three White women (one very clearly queer), and our manager who's also a White woman. Housing Access, however, is a Black man, a Latin man, and a Middle Eastern woman who grew up in Germany. NOt gonna lie, I'm probably the least qualified. We're unionized though, so everyone gets treated with the level of sensitivity they need. If there's interpersonal conflict, both sides get a safe space because we're dealing with feelings more than facts in that sort of mediation. Obviously we encourage diverse applicants, but it only really matters if we're totally lacking in representation. Kind of important to provide the most effective service though.
Numerous studies where they have done things like send out resumes with different names on suggest there are biases in many industries. Also, entrenched previous issues can have long term effects. For example I work in videogames so am most familiar with that industry. A lot of hiring (especially in smaller companies) comes from positions that might never have even been widely advertised. Someone knows someone who has a bunch of experience and would be a good fit, so they put them forward and they get hired. Or a job is more widely advertised, and people inside the company will obviously recommend and act for references for people they have previously worked with and know to be good, which gives those applications more weight and more chance of getting interviews and being hired. Guys in a company are more likely to socialize with other guys in a company, and women with the other women (obviously not universally, but it often tends to be the case). So the benefit of having more close personal connections extends to people who were never part of any original intentional bias or discrimination. Those type of influences apply across most industries with specialist skills, and no-one in those examples is doing anything wrong at all. But what it means is that previous biases or discrimination in terms of who got hired at a company 20-30 or more years ago can still show in who gets hired for open roles now. I've worked at places which tried to address those situations by ensuring a wide net is cast when going through recruiting processes. Looking to see if the way roles are advertised or described or being biased towards internal referrals meant that potentially great groups of candidates were never even landing on recruitings radar in the first place. When the initial candidates were vetted, portfolios of work were assessed with all identifying information stripped, and if possible anyone who knew any of the candidates excluded from the process entirely. When it comes to the final decisions there was never any lean towards hiring the less qualified candidate, no-one ever hired for being a woman or part of some underrepresented ethnic group. But it still meant more got hired, because it turned out that various reasons meant those fantastic candidates were unintentionally getting filtered out previously. And the companies were stronger for having made that effort, because it meant the final hired workers were truly the best available.
you go underground...you do the little thngs you can to 'keep em down' that mean nastly ole Govt. wont let me do it out in the open (although with trump that is changing it is now an american thing to identify with the racist president). don't worry bubba your privilege is going nowhere you will still be able to 'keep em down' both above and below board
So is MAGAworld's meltdown over Cracker Barrel changing its logo a piece of freestanding insanity, or is it somehow picking up on a thread from when they were mortally offended by the existence of a meatless choice on the menu?
It's less wokeism, and more a desperate attempt to stay relevant. See: Dunkin' Donuts suddenly becoming just "Dunkin". This video should explain:
The fact that FF and UA are employed is proof positive that there is still a bias in hiring unqualified white men. Then again, Dayton never could seem to hold a job, so there may be a hope for DEI yet...
