Chris Powell calls for Rooney Rule to be introduced

[Headless Chicken]

Sept 8, 2014 19:31:04 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

Sept 8, 2014 19:22:25 GMT 1 Headless Chicken said:

That is a fair point!

However, I don't think it's generally aimed at overtly racist biggots (or equivalent), rather those who may have formed preconceptions.

Is there a difference though? I mean if someone has such a preconception that a guy won't be a good manager because hes black, then that pretty much makes him overtly racist surely?

You'd think so, but there are people who judge people negatively, but not because of 'hate', rather daft ideas they've got in their head. Not everyone is as well rounded as you

As I've since posted, I was dead against any of this, especially as a young(ish) white able-bodied male, but was recently convinced it's not that unreasonable if done properly. Funnily enough it was in the context of a CEO explaining the aim and method, whilst in effect shooting down a black woman moaning there was no female or non-white representation on the board!!!!

[hypotenuse]

Sept 8, 2014 19:28:48 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

Sept 8, 2014 18:05:41 GMT 1 hypotenuse said:

My goodness - some of the comments on here are mighty depressing. One positive - at least I now understand why the bigots and misogynists calling themselves UKIP manage to cobble together so many votes

what a stupid comment. I mean really, really stupid.
The debate and comments obviously sail way over your head. It's a common problem idiots like yourself have whenever theres any kind of discussion of this nature.

Ouch - that's pretty personal. But, hey, I've got broad shoulders and I can take it. I'll strive ceaselessly to acquire the cerebral skills required to take part in this erudite debate.

[Captainslapper]

Keep striving lad. You've got a long way to go.

[hypotenuse]

Sadly it is a very long time since I had the sharp wit of youth

[Captainslapper]

Well read through the thread again. Lots of adults debating a sensitive topic in a sensible way. No ones being racist. No ones being bigotted.
Its all pretty good stuff until some idiot turns up who can't cope with a discussion involving race without insisting one half of the debate must be racist.
Do one.

[hypotenuse]

I never accused anyone of being racist

[hypotenuse]

Captainslapper - I also meant to add that the term bigoted is not a synonym for racist. It means 'having an obstinate belief in the superiority of your own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others'. Also, it was not directed at you specifically though you took great offence. Perhaps you can learn a little of the humility shown by Condescending Terrier who was open minded enough to reconsider his position on the issue if what he writes is true

[Captainslapper]

beep beep beep. Is that the sound of backtracking?

'My goodness - some of the comments on here are mighty depressing. One positive - at least I now understand why the bigots and misogynists calling themselves UKIP manage to cobble together so many votes'

You don't have use the word 'racist' to clearly imply it and by the best will in the world your post certainly implies that, so don't try and make out that wasn't your intention. Thats why i took great offence.

Condescending terrier is an intelligent poster and more than capable of reconsidering his view on any topic.
Maybe you should try the same thing.

theres 3 options open to you-

1-read through the thread again and accept your post was insulting, stupid and utterly baseless.
2- back it up with a reasoned argument as to which views on this thread you find bigotted and racist and why.
3- pretend that wasn't what you meant.

You've tried 3, why not give 1 or 2 a go?

[hypotenuse]

Just got on the messageboards tonight and find this unpleasant, insidious posting. I can condone some of your pathetic insults but I will not accept the manner in which you say that I imply things which I have not said. This is the second time you have done this in response to what I have posted - it is the tactic of someone who tries to bully people and who tries to twist the words of others because of the paucity of their own arguments. The first occasion occurred when I posted a thread concerning attitudes to disability and you replied that I "want people to be favoured by skin colour". More recently, because of your own ignorance at the correct meaning of a word - bigot - you state that I am implying the word racist. Had that been my intention, guess what ... I would have used the phrase 'racist bigot'. Simple really if you have any grasp of the language. I'll further illustrate the point. I have a few mates who voted UKIP recently. They are good blokes and I enjoy a chat about football over a pint. I don't in any way believe tham to be racist but when I try to counter some of their anti-EU rhetoric, they immediately say things like 'bloody Bill of Human Rights, fucking Brussels and Strasbourg' and simply refuse to engage in any reasoned debate - hence the earlier posting.
You ask me to point out examples of bigotry. I will do so but, just to clarify once again, so you don't respond with ignorant ill-informed nonsense, these are not examples of racist bigotry, just bigotry. Can you get your head around that? If not, don't bother reading on.
Giggity - get on with your job Powell and stop crying the poor tale
Davva - it's simple, all kinds of discrimination are wrong...
Captainslapper - (repeatedly)there is no difference between discrimination and positive discrimination
The Sheriff of Huddersfield - an administrator, for goodness sake - it's naff all to do with skin colour and everything to do with the fact they aren't good enough
OldRastrickian - utterly disgraceful response to terrier5 posting about his daughter

It is not (forgive the phrase) as black and white as that - more a shade of grey. If it was simple, we would have solved the problem and it wouldn't crop on these messageboards or anywhere else.

Try to go back through the thread. Maybe, with an open mind, read carefully the posts from Condescending Terrier, terrier5, Doc Halladay 32, thrice, Ted Chips and one or two others.
Oh, and an apology for the comments you made (hidden by the cloak of anonymity on these boards) from which you draw utterly erroneous conclusions.

[Captainslapper]

bigotry- Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:

I thought Id put the definition up because you seem to be of the impression that the definition of bigotry is- 'whatever people i don't agree with say'.

You jumped into what was an interesting, well balanced and sensible debate with an unpleasant, insulting contribution that had the clear intention of likening DATM posters you know nothing about with what you consider to be a bigotted racist political party.
And yes, you didn't use the term racist but baring in mind this whole discussion is about race and in particular racial discrimination , i think its safe to assume that's what your meaning was. You'd have to be pretty dumb to post that comment on a thread such as this if you genuinely didn't think it would be taken as such. Im sure i won't have been the only one, even if I was the only one bothered to pull you up on it.

To consider the contributions you've highlighted as bigotted is frankly laughable. I mean seriously, I read them and laughed out loud!
You don't seem to understand the difference between having an OPINION and being a bigot- other than of course your idea that a bigot is someone who holds a view that you don't agree with.

End of the day, every one was engaging in reasoned debate on a delicate subject until you popped your stupid, groundless and ,yes, BIGOTTED post into the mix , you hypocritical oaf!

By the way I have absolutely no recollection of any previous 'conversation' with you, but if i did say that to you I can't say Im surprised.

[thrice]

Sept 9, 2014 23:15:15 GMT 1 hypotenuse said:

You ask me to point out examples of bigotry. I will do so but, just to clarify once again, so you don't respond with ignorant ill-informed nonsense, these are not examples of racist bigotry, just bigotry. Can you get your head around that? If not, don't bother reading on.
Giggity - get on with your job Powell and stop crying the poor tale
Davva - it's simple, all kinds of discrimination are wrong...
Captainslapper - (repeatedly)there is no difference between discrimination and positive discrimination
The Sheriff of Huddersfield - an administrator, for goodness sake - it's naff all to do with skin colour and everything to do with the fact they aren't good enough
OldRastrickian - utterly disgraceful response to terrier5 posting about his daughter.

Had I been responsible for any of these contributions I would take exception to being called a bigot, but my heart is actually bleeding for Davva.

I've enjoyed this thread & get the feeling there is plenty more of it to come.

Nothing wrong with folk having a different point of view & stating it.

Sometimes you just have to accept that we cannot all see things in the same way.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2014 23:57:00 GMT 1 thrice said:

Sept 9, 2014 23:15:15 GMT 1 hypotenuse said:

You ask me to point out examples of bigotry. I will do so but, just to clarify once again, so you don't respond with ignorant ill-informed nonsense, these are not examples of racist bigotry, just bigotry. Can you get your head around that? If not, don't bother reading on.
Giggity - get on with your job Powell and stop crying the poor tale
Davva - it's simple, all kinds of discrimination are wrong...
Captainslapper - (repeatedly)there is no difference between discrimination and positive discrimination
The Sheriff of Huddersfield - an administrator, for goodness sake - it's naff all to do with skin colour and everything to do with the fact they aren't good enough
OldRastrickian - utterly disgraceful response to terrier5 posting about his daughter.

Had I been responsible for any of these contributions I would take exception to being called a bigot, but my heart is actually bleeding for Davva.

I've enjoyed this thread & get the feeling there is plenty more of it to come.

Nothing wrong with folk having a different point of view & stating it.

Sometimes you just have to accept that we cannot all see things in the same way.

I can't believe I am a bigot because I think all kinds of discrimination are wrong!

Who would have thought? Shame on me!

Only on DATM

[Captainslapper]

Anyone who thinks ' all kinds of discrimination is wrong' is clearly a bigot! Shame on you davva!! LOL

At least hes not an administrator for goodness sake!!

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 0:26:38 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

Anyone who thinks ' all kinds of discrimination is wrong' is clearly a bigot! Shame on you davva!! LOL

At least hes not an administrator for goodness sake!!

I think I am going to sign up for a diversity class at work tomorrow. LMAO

[kautostar1]

What a load of bollocks.

What is the Rooney rule please? Is it anything to do with that fat scouser from the theatre of freaks?

[Captainslapper]

I went to bed still laughing at his examples of bigotry!!

I wonder if hypotenuse can spot the irony here?

statement 1- bigotry- Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:

Statement 2- 'My goodness - some of the comments on here are mighty depressing. One positive - at least I now understand why the bigots and misogynists calling themselves UKIP manage to cobble together so many votes'

Offers no argument, no reasoned debate. Just dismisses the opposition view and illustrates his intolerance to it with a inanely stupid insult.

By his own definition and not withstanding his rather bizarre understanding of what bigotry is, maybe our resident bigot-hunter will have the self awareness and brains too see how his post is the most bigoted in this thread and thus, he is the main bigot?
I doubt hes got either somehow.

[Deleted]

I think there's a possibility that some people are confused about the meaning of the phrase 'equality of opportunity'. You see, the point is that we live in a world of deeply ingrained and often institutionalised oppressions. So from an early age women, people of colour, and people with non-traditional gender and sexual orientations, have a lot of barriers put in front them, not least because white men tend to have a firm grip on the levers of power. Now, those barriers build up to the point where a job interview becomes very loaded for minorities.

That's what affirmative action is: it's a means to bring about equality of opportunity, to level the playing field, to remove some of those barriers. The idea that we should just ignore the fact that certain people are at an advantage and others are at a disadvantage when it comes to employment is just a way to preserve the status-quo. And it's not about giving 'undeserving' folks jobs. It's about giving qualified people a chance to prove themselves.

You can't call 'reverse discrimination' every time there's an initiative to correct a historical injustice. Well, you can if you want, but it sounds kind of silly.

[Deleted]

Having said that, I don't think the Rooney Rule would do much good. The problem is a lack of black coaches at all levels, which is odd considering upwards of 25% of players in the UK are from a black or ethnic minority background. You'd just have the same 2 or 3 blokes interviewing for every job.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 9:41:27 GMT 1 @1860munching said:

I think there's a possibility that some people are confused about the meaning of the phrase 'equality of opportunity'. You see, the point is that we live in a world of deeply ingrained and often institutionalised oppressions. So from an early age women, people of colour, and people with non-traditional gender and sexual orientations, have a lot of barriers put in front them, not least because white men tend to have a firm grip on the levers of power. Now, those barriers build up to the point where a job interview becomes very loaded for minorities.

That's what affirmative action is: it's a means to bring about equality of opportunity, to level the playing field, to remove some of those barriers. The idea that we should just ignore the fact that certain people are at an advantage and others are at a disadvantage when it comes to employment is just a way to preserve the status-quo. And it's not about giving 'undeserving' folks jobs. It's about giving qualified people a chance to prove themselves.

You can't call 'reverse discrimination' every time there's an initiative to correct a historical injustice. Well, you can if you want, but it sounds kind of silly.

ake

The issue I have with trying to right a previous wrong is it creates a new injustice because these things do not occur in isolation. As soon as you select someone for an interview, or hire them, or accept them into college, over someone else simply because you have a quota to fill you are disadvantaging someone else just because they are not a minority. It may be positive discrimination in favor of the minority but its negative discrimination against the person that is not a minority. The selection process should be blind to race, sexual preference, etc, and should be based on criteria relevant to the position being applied for.

The last thing that I would say is that if you legislate how many minorities have to make up your interview pool, do you really think that the hiring outcome will be any different if the person doing the interview has a racial bias?

I am all for equal opportunity by the way, but equal opportunity is not the same as an equal outcome.

By the way, I do agree that the managerial merry go round seems to be occupied by the same people all the time. Kind of strange when most of them continually fail. It seems to be more of an old boys network than anything else. I am really pleased Town did not go that route and went for a guy who is considered to be a very good coach with a bright future.

[terrier5]

I'll not get drawn into too many more arguments on this but does anyone spot the irony of someone who is a) white and b) male complaining that positive discrimination meant he wasn't considered for the Fire Service? I'll be amazed if the majority of faces on any subsequent recruits' course at Birkenshaw (assuming it was WYFRS in question) wasn't white male. Do a FoI request if you want: I stand ready to be corrected.

I wonder if any of the folk throwing around that expression would ever suggest that here was an example of someone 'playing the race card' as an excuse for failure (in a way that Paul Ince apparently does. Google 'paul ince racism' and see what you come up with! Stuart Pearce apologising for racially abusing Ince in 1994 and Paul Ince denying that the FA were ever racist toward him during his international career: repeat the charge often enough though and it'll become a self evident truth on DATM). 'Playing the race card' automatically presumes a deliberate attempt to shift blame by a non white person - and is used to simply bat away any suggestion of racism without further thought. Just because someone said "you're white and male" etc doesn't mean they aren't talking bollocks!

If it's any consolation, a) I believe the initial sift was by computerised random selection and b) a lot of firefighters are very disillusioned with the job.

I guess hypotenuse lost the audience somewhere along the way but I think too many people get worked up about the notion of 'positive discrimination' without knowing what it actually means for recruiters and applicants in practice. Even on this thread, a lot of folk have their knickers in a twist over the Rooney rule and yet it clearly obliges no one to appoint anyone other than the person they wish to.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 14:01:25 GMT 1 terrier5 said:

I'll not get drawn into too many more arguments on this but does anyone spot the irony of someone who is a) white and b) male complaining that positive discrimination meant he wasn't considered for the Fire Service? I'll be amazed if the majority of faces on any subsequent recruits' course at Birkenshaw (assuming it was WYFRS in question) wasn't white male. Do a FoI request if you want: I stand ready to be corrected.

I wonder if any of the folk throwing around that expression would ever suggest that here was an example of someone 'playing the race card' as an excuse for failure (in a way that Paul Ince apparently does. Google 'paul ince racism' and see what you come up with! Stuart Pearce apologising for racially abusing Ince in 1994 and Paul Ince denying that the FA were ever racist toward him during his international career: repeat the charge often enough though and it'll become a self evident truth on DATM). 'Playing the race card' automatically presumes a deliberate attempt to shift blame by a non white person - and is used to simply bat away any suggestion of racism without further thought. Just because someone said "you're white and male" etc doesn't mean they aren't talking bollocks!

If it's any consolation, a) I believe the initial sift was by computerised random selection and b) a lot of firefighters are very disillusioned with the job.

I guess hypotenuse lost the audience somewhere along the way but I think too many people get worked up about the notion of 'positive discrimination' without knowing what it actually means for recruiters and applicants in practice. Even on this thread, a lot of folk have their knickers in a twist over the Rooney rule and yet it clearly obliges no one to appoint anyone other than the person they wish to.

I simply disagree with the whole notion that there is such a thing as positive discrimination. It is still discrimination and it is still wrong no matter how anyone tries to justify it. If you are positively discriminating in favor of one group, you are at the same time negatively discriminating against people who are not a member of that group. One can not exist without the other.

The big question is:

Would you feel better about the past discriminations against blacks if the people involved had claimed they were not negatively discriminating against blacks, they were positively discriminating in favor of whites?

My guess is you would still say it was unacceptable and you would be correct, but people are using that same argument to justify discrimination in the other direction. It makes zero sense.

[terrier5]

Sept 10, 2014 14:19:12 GMT 1 @davva360 said:

Sept 10, 2014 14:01:25 GMT 1 terrier5 said:

I'll not get drawn into too many more arguments on this but does anyone spot the irony of someone who is a) white and b) male complaining that positive discrimination meant he wasn't considered for the Fire Service? I'll be amazed if the majority of faces on any subsequent recruits' course at Birkenshaw (assuming it was WYFRS in question) wasn't white male. Do a FoI request if you want: I stand ready to be corrected.

I wonder if any of the folk throwing around that expression would ever suggest that here was an example of someone 'playing the race card' as an excuse for failure (in a way that Paul Ince apparently does. Google 'paul ince racism' and see what you come up with! Stuart Pearce apologising for racially abusing Ince in 1994 and Paul Ince denying that the FA were ever racist toward him during his international career: repeat the charge often enough though and it'll become a self evident truth on DATM). 'Playing the race card' automatically presumes a deliberate attempt to shift blame by a non white person - and is used to simply bat away any suggestion of racism without further thought. Just because someone said "you're white and male" etc doesn't mean they aren't talking bollocks!

If it's any consolation, a) I believe the initial sift was by computerised random selection and b) a lot of firefighters are very disillusioned with the job.

I guess hypotenuse lost the audience somewhere along the way but I think too many people get worked up about the notion of 'positive discrimination' without knowing what it actually means for recruiters and applicants in practice. Even on this thread, a lot of folk have their knickers in a twist over the Rooney rule and yet it clearly obliges no one to appoint anyone other than the person they wish to.

I simply disagree with the whole notion that there is such a thing as positive discrimination. It is still discrimination and it is still wrong no matter how anyone tries to justify it. If you are positively discriminating in favor of one group, you are at the same time negatively discriminating against people who are not a member of that group. One can not exist without the other.

The big question is:

Would you feel better about the past discriminations against blacks if the people involved had claimed they were not negatively discriminating against blacks, they were positively discriminating in favor of whites?

My guess is you would still say it was unacceptable and you would be correct, but people are using that same argument to justify discrimination in the other direction. It makes zero sense.

No davva, but I'm suggesting that what it is called in not necessarily what it is in practice. I would hope everyone on this thread has at least briefly read the rooney rule link. Is it really anything to get one's knickers in a twist over? I don't work in HR. Maybe someone who does can enlighten us as to whether we can all relax? Just remember that stating "applications are encouraged /welcome from women or BME groups etc" in a job advert such as the Fire Service might have done, really shouldn't get anyone too upset. See my comments above.

[Doc Halladay 32]

Sept 10, 2014 14:19:12 GMT 1 @davva360 said:

Sept 10, 2014 14:01:25 GMT 1 terrier5 said:

I'll not get drawn into too many more arguments on this but does anyone spot the irony of someone who is a) white and b) male complaining that positive discrimination meant he wasn't considered for the Fire Service? I'll be amazed if the majority of faces on any subsequent recruits' course at Birkenshaw (assuming it was WYFRS in question) wasn't white male. Do a FoI request if you want: I stand ready to be corrected.

I wonder if any of the folk throwing around that expression would ever suggest that here was an example of someone 'playing the race card' as an excuse for failure (in a way that Paul Ince apparently does. Google 'paul ince racism' and see what you come up with! Stuart Pearce apologising for racially abusing Ince in 1994 and Paul Ince denying that the FA were ever racist toward him during his international career: repeat the charge often enough though and it'll become a self evident truth on DATM). 'Playing the race card' automatically presumes a deliberate attempt to shift blame by a non white person - and is used to simply bat away any suggestion of racism without further thought. Just because someone said "you're white and male" etc doesn't mean they aren't talking bollocks!

If it's any consolation, a) I believe the initial sift was by computerised random selection and b) a lot of firefighters are very disillusioned with the job.

I guess hypotenuse lost the audience somewhere along the way but I think too many people get worked up about the notion of 'positive discrimination' without knowing what it actually means for recruiters and applicants in practice. Even on this thread, a lot of folk have their knickers in a twist over the Rooney rule and yet it clearly obliges no one to appoint anyone other than the person they wish to.

I simply disagree with the whole notion that there is such a thing as positive discrimination. It is still discrimination and it is still wrong no matter how anyone tries to justify it. If you are positively discriminating in favor of one group, you are at the same time negatively discriminating against people who are not a member of that group. One can not exist without the other.

The big question is:

Would you feel better about the past discriminations against blacks if the people involved had claimed they were not negatively discriminating against blacks, they were positively discriminating in favor of whites?

My guess is you would still say it was unacceptable and you would be correct, but people are using that same argument to justify discrimination in the other direction. It makes zero sense.

I think that this debate is getting so far away from the 'rooney rule' that wires are becoming crossed.

From wikipedia:
The Rooney Rule requires National Football League teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. It was established in 2003.

So in effect if a club decides to have a shortlist of 5 candidates to interview and when they've picked their top 5 if it includes someone from a minority then fine, and if it doesn't then they add a sixth candidate - the best minority candidate who applied.

IMO there is no 'positive discrimination' in this case. At the end of the day the club will hire the best candidate and as long as they have interviewed someone from a minority background then all is good.

There is no rule that any club MUST appoint a person from a minority background

The rule has worked well in the NFL and only the odd case of a fine imposed on one team who appointed a coach without interviewing ANY other candidates.

[galpharm2400]

a football club is a business..

in business you employ the best person for the job..

I employ people who have the qualifications/experience(in some cases) and the personal skills to do what they have to..

that's it..

I wish to make a success of the work, we all get paid if we do it right..we all get paid more if we get it very right!!!

The problems come when the Public sector start employing people on quotas because they don't have to make a profit on their 'business' and savings seems to be the only 'goal' at the moment, so good staff or bad staff makes no difference if you just cut jobs/services.. seems as long as you employ the 'correct number' of different people and save a few quid by getting shut of staff and stop providing a lot of what you did last year you are 'succeeding'...

[Deleted]

Whether required to appoint a minority or not, its still discrimination. If I have 50 applicants and I am going to interview 10 people I now have to screen the applications based on the position I am trying to fill, and then go back and make sure I have enough minority candidates in my interview pool. I may even have to eliminate a better qualified non minority candidate from my interview pool and replace them with a minority candidate for nothing other than political correctness.

The racial profile of someone applying should not even come into consideration. If we want to get past race then why even ask the question?

[Doc Halladay 32]

Sept 10, 2014 15:16:42 GMT 1 @davva360 said:

Whether required to appoint a minority or not, its still discrimination. If I have 50 applicants and I am going to interview 10 people I now have to screen the applications based on the position I am trying to fill, and then go back and make sure I have enough minority candidates in my interview pool. I may even have to eliminate a better qualified non minority candidate from my interview pool and replace them with a minority candidate for nothing other than political correctness.

The racial profile of someone applying should not even come into consideration. If we want to get past race then why even ask the question?

The Rooney rule was established after the then commissioner Tagliabue

"long ago realized not only the negative perception but also the pragmatic shortcoming of stewarding a league where 70 percent of the rank-and-file is black, but in which less than a handful of head coaches are men of colour."

Clearly within the FA there isn't the 70% number but the percentage of black managers (1 from 92) is way lower than the percentage of black players, I believe it has been stated several times on this thread that more black ex players need to become coaches and this may be where any initiatives should be initially aimed.

If ANY industry has a percentile ethnicity difference in the highest roles than throughout the organistion then I would hope they would look into why this is and try and institute change to redress the balance, and frankly I would be surprised if any reasonable person would think differently.

[galpharm2400]

powell was probably the only black manager to apply for our job, don't think dean gave it a thought..

he would have employed a blue bloke with purple spots if he had what dean wanted..

would anyone wanting to be a success or to make money actually pick a candidate over another that interfered with that 'goal' for whatever reason?

[Doc Halladay 32]

Sept 10, 2014 15:44:34 GMT 1 galpharm2400 said:

powell was probably the only black manager to apply for our job, don't think dean gave it a thought..

he would have employed a blue bloke with purple spots if he had what dean wanted..

would anyone wanting to be a success or to make money actually pick a candidate over another that interfered with that 'goal' for whatever reason?

No and I don't think anyone is saying they should.

The Rooney rule certainly doesn't.

And Dean quite rightly shouldn't give it a thought.

Also is it not right for an industry that has a 70% black workforce but has say 32 white senior managers, look into ways of identifying and promoting worthy black candidates?

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 15:48:17 GMT 1 Doc Halladay 32 said:

Sept 10, 2014 15:44:34 GMT 1 galpharm2400 said:

powell was probably the only black manager to apply for our job, don't think dean gave it a thought..

he would have employed a blue bloke with purple spots if he had what dean wanted..

would anyone wanting to be a success or to make money actually pick a candidate over another that interfered with that 'goal' for whatever reason?

No and I don't think anyone is saying they should.

The Rooney rule certainly doesn't.

And Dean quite rightly shouldn't give it a thought.

Also is it not right for an industry that has a 70% black workforce but has say 32 white senior managers, look into ways of identifying and promoting worthy black candidates?

I would not have given it a thought either. Its the last thing on my mind when I am looking at CV's and performing interviews. I just want to know your education and work history to determine what you bring to the table. I have interviewed hundreds of candidates for various level jobs. I have hired dozens of people, some have been a great success and others not so much lol. Living in Florida the population is very diverse and I have hired and fired across all ages, sexes, races, sexual preferences, etc.

To me though you should always hire the best person for the job based on their experience and regardless of anything else. Actively looking for someone that fits a certain non job related criteria is a bad way to go about it in my opinion.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 12:54:17 GMT 1 @davva360 said:

Sept 10, 2014 9:41:27 GMT 1 @1860munching said:

I think there's a possibility that some people are confused about the meaning of the phrase 'equality of opportunity'. You see, the point is that we live in a world of deeply ingrained and often institutionalised oppressions. So from an early age women, people of colour, and people with non-traditional gender and sexual orientations, have a lot of barriers put in front them, not least because white men tend to have a firm grip on the levers of power. Now, those barriers build up to the point where a job interview becomes very loaded for minorities.

That's what affirmative action is: it's a means to bring about equality of opportunity, to level the playing field, to remove some of those barriers. The idea that we should just ignore the fact that certain people are at an advantage and others are at a disadvantage when it comes to employment is just a way to preserve the status-quo. And it's not about giving 'undeserving' folks jobs. It's about giving qualified people a chance to prove themselves.

You can't call 'reverse discrimination' every time there's an initiative to correct a historical injustice. Well, you can if you want, but it sounds kind of silly.

ake

The issue I have with trying to right a previous wrong is it creates a new injustice because these things do not occur in isolation. As soon as you select someone for an interview, or hire them, or accept them into college, over someone else simply because you have a quota to fill you are disadvantaging someone else just because they are not a minority. It may be positive discrimination in favor of the minority but its negative discrimination against the person that is not a minority. The selection process should be blind to race, sexual preference, etc, and should be based on criteria relevant to the position being applied for.

The last thing that I would say is that if you legislate how many minorities have to make up your interview pool, do you really think that the hiring outcome will be any different if the person doing the interview has a racial bias?

I am all for equal opportunity by the way, but equal opportunity is not the same as an equal outcome.

By the way, I do agree that the managerial merry go round seems to be occupied by the same people all the time. Kind of strange when most of them continually fail. It seems to be more of an old boys network than anything else. I am really pleased Town did not go that route and went for a guy who is considered to be a very good coach with a bright future.

I think we both have very different conceptions of what equal opportunity actually means. You're essentially saying that people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds aren't subject to the constraints of wider social structures. In other words, they get a fair crack at the whip, just like everybody else. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case, and nor do the key economic indicators. You can only justify a colour blind hiring process if you live in a colour blind society. Last time I checked, we do not. By ignoring that fact, all you end up doing is reinforcing pre-existing inequalities.

Now, you're claiming that attempts to create a level playing field, to be inclusive, are just another form of discrimination. For the reasons outlined above, I don't agree with that contention. But just imagine if you'd been exposed to the kind discrimination that people of colour and woman regularly face. Would you be so willing to dismiss the kind of things we've been talking about?

It's all about context--you cannot simply ignore historical and contemporary injustices when talking about public policy. They don't just dissolve overnight. I dare say that when white folks shout so loudly about affirmative action and the like, they're playing their own race card.