Is it me or are these people way over the line? [Archive]

drkitten

27th April 2009, 01:39 PM

So I'm looking for music teaching jobs on craigslist and I find this one, which has the following requirements:

•NYS Teacher Certification required

Oops, don't have one

•Minimum 2 years teaching experience preferred

I'm close enough

•Bachelor degree required/Master’s degree preferred

Damn. Looks like I don't qualify. Oh well, I'll keep reading

•Spanish-speaking preferred

That I am

•Applicants of color strongly encouraged to apply

...... huh?

What?
Excuse me?

It's a standard line, almost required today in the employment industry. (Google "strongly encouraged to apply" for examples.)

One of the things that has come out of various fields of research is that a common form of unconscious discrimination is to discourage underrepresented candidates from applying, either by putting the ads in the wrong spots, using in-group references that implicitly exclude them, and so forth. Language like that -- "strongly encouraged to apply" costs almost nothing and may help, literally, to "encourage" applications from candidates who otherwise wouldn't have applied.

What's the problem?

Ron_Tomkins

27th April 2009, 01:43 PM

drkitten

27th April 2009, 01:49 PM

I'm just wondering what's the criteria under which they strongly urge applicants of color to apply. Is there any particular relevance to the fact that someone is a person of color when it comes to teaching music?

Yes, for several reasons.

First, getting "a more diverse faculty" is a legally recognized good thing. If nothing else, it helps provide role models for the diverse student body they will be getting -- and gets the EEOC off their back.

Second, they can catch hell from the EEOC if their applicant pool isn't diverse enough (because one typical way of expressing discrimination was through overt or covert "that type need not apply." If 100% of your applicants are white males, then that's pretty good evidence that your recruitment policies are discriminatory.

So phrases like "strongly encouraged to apply" tend to become part of the standard HR boilerplate, specifically so that HR can show the EEOC that they are, in fact, taking proactive measures to increase the number of traditionally underrepresented groups in the applicant pool.

Fnord

27th April 2009, 02:07 PM

... So phrases like "strongly encouraged to apply" tend to become part of the standard HR boilerplate, specifically so that HR can show the EEOC that they are, in fact, taking proactive measures to increase the number of traditionally underrepresented groups in the applicant pool.
.
"Proactive Measures" <-- "Affirmative Action" <-- "Reverse Discrimination"

Those euphemisms keep piling up.

drkitten

27th April 2009, 02:14 PM

.
"Proactive Measures" <-- "Affirmative Action" <-- "Reverse Discrimination"

Those euphemisms keep piling up.

Not at all. In fact, one of the things that was specifically recommended, more or less from day 1 of the civil rights legislation, was that companies should specifically try to get a more diverse applicant pool, precisely because there is no possible way that it violates YOUR rights when I encourage someone else to apply for a job. Indeed, HR usually likes it when it gets as many applications as possible, precisely because that gives it more choices.

And if they can show enough proactive measures in attracting applicants, they will generally find better applicants and may be able to hire enough minority applicants that they don't need to resort to the stronger measures generally considered to be "reverse discrimination."

Unfortunately, it's not usually sufficient -- an organization or person that prefers not to hire "that sort of person" isn't likely to change their mind just because the percentage of that sort jumps from 5% to 20% in the applicant pool.

billydkid

27th April 2009, 02:17 PM

I'm with Ron on this - and with MLK Jr. - You know, the "...content of their character..." thing. Racism - or, rather, "diversity awareness" - is only a bad thing when bad or mean people embrace it. Our enlightened betters are able to make these sorts of subtle distinctions between classifications of people in a humane way which the rest of us can not.

shuize

27th April 2009, 02:19 PM

So much for being judged based on the content of one's character.

ETA: I see the post above beat me to it.

drkitten

27th April 2009, 02:23 PM

Racism - or, rather, "diversity awareness" - is only a bad thing when bad or mean people embrace it.

I suggest a different formulation. Racism is only a bad thing when people are hurt by it.

I could walk through the streets of New York City handing an application form for this particular job to every black person I see ("Would you like to be a music teacher?" "No? Well, take this form anyway in case you change your mind") and it wouldn't violate Ron's rights or harm him in any way. Ron never had an expectation that he would be the only applicant. If Ron's the best applicant, then he should get the job regardless of whether ten other people or ten thousand other people applied -- and if he was the best among the ten, but not among the ten thousand, then someone better got the job, which is just as it should be.

drkitten

27th April 2009, 02:24 PM

So much for being judged based on the content of one's character.

Not at all. This is a call for applicants. No one is being judged at all yet.

IMST

27th April 2009, 02:44 PM

As a white male who has gotten two jobs after applying to positions that contained this language, I'm fairly confident it's not a really big deal.

drkitten

27th April 2009, 02:52 PM

As a white male who has gotten two jobs after applying to positions that contained this language, I'm fairly confident it's not a really big deal.

Indeed, almost all positions contain this language.

Soapy Sam

27th April 2009, 02:56 PM

I never saw it in a job ad in my life.

Is it restricted to the US?

Fnord

27th April 2009, 02:58 PM

Not at all. This is a call for applicants. No one is being judged at all yet.
If that's the case, then I hope that none of the applications in any way indicate what the color of a person's skin -- or their age, culture, ethnicity, gender, nationality, and so forth -- might be. Only in a truly fair and equitable meritocracy would such things not matter.

I'm sorry DK, but after losing out on promotions to less-qualified "people of color" (and less-qualified women, as well) back in the 1980's (and sticking around long enough to see them get fired for incompetence), I'm a little reluctant to believe that any job description that even mentions such things is truly on the level.

But that's just me, right?

drkitten

27th April 2009, 03:01 PM

I never saw it in a job ad in my life.

Is it restricted to the US?

More or less. So I suppose I should amend my previous statement to 'almost all US jobs contain that language.' It's been boilerplate for something like 20 years.

applecorped

27th April 2009, 03:04 PM

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Two wrongs do not a right make.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/22/ricci-v-destafano/

Soapy Sam

27th April 2009, 03:05 PM

Fnord

27th April 2009, 03:05 PM

Two wrongs do not a right make.
But four left turns often do!

;)

Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

So let's stop "giving points" to people that are not white, financially stable, middle-aged males, and make hiring, promoting, demoting, and firing based solely on whether or not the person does the job (which should always include getting along well with co-workers).

WildCat

27th April 2009, 03:10 PM

But four left turns often do!

;)
Errrrr... I think that's 1 too many... :boxedin:

Fnord

27th April 2009, 03:12 PM

Errrrr... I think that's 1 too many... :boxedin:
Well ... i'm not too good at "lefty" humor ...

(Sorry folks ... long day ... need lie-down ...)

drkitten

27th April 2009, 03:15 PM

If that's the case, then I hope that none of the applications in any way indicate what the color of a person's skin -- or their age, culture, ethnicity, gender, nationality, and so forth -- might be.

Most job application forms don't. Those that do usually have questions about gender and ethnicity on a separate form that will be mailed to you after your application is received and returned to a separate EEO office. Furthermore, it's an optional form; you don't need to return it at all, and if you do, you don't need to answer any of the questions. (I can find you copies of the various forms on-line if you like; the language, as I said, is very standardized.)

Of course, you can put whatever information you like on the actual application you send; if you tell people in your cover letter than you were the president of the Black Student Association, the hiring manager will draw inferences. (And similarly if you tell him you were president of the Young Republicans. People are human and draw inferences, even when they're not formally valid -- not all members of the BSA are black, either.) For that matter, if your name is "Wang Lee" or "Rachel Cohen," he'll make inferences about that.

But we were talking about the forms. And in the case of the EEO form which invites you to share your ethnicity, if the hiring committee looked at the EEO files or the EEO office were to interfere with the hiring decision, that would be actionable. The sole reason for such a form is so that the EEO can document (if someone cares) that actions were taken to get as diverse an applicant pool as possible and to document the diversity in the applicant pool.

I'm sorry DK, but after losing out on promotions to less-qualified "people of color" (and less-qualified women, as well) back in the 1980's (and sticking around long enough to see them get fired for incompetence), I'm a little reluctant to believe that any job description that even mentions such things is truly on the level.

But that's just me, right?

Yes, I'm afraid it is "just you." I suspect not looked for a job since the 1980s, since this language was commonplace in job advertisements even then.

As you might suspect, it's harder to do promotions because most -- in fact, usually all, almost by definition -- of the candidates for promotions are internal, so you can't build a diverse applicant pool. The promoting manager usually already knows who the candidates are. But that's not the case for new hires; any new hire that is open to the public will attract candidates that you aren't already familiar with and know nothing about. And the whole point of a public hire is to bring as much "new blood" in as possible.

Even if you only hire one person, it's much better to hire one after having looked at 200 applications than after having looked at 20 -- and HR knows it. Even if you end up going with an internal hire, and even if you end up going with a white male, it's still better to be making an informed choice.

drkitten

27th April 2009, 03:17 PM

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

The only problem with that particular bumper-sticker-masquerading-as-thought is that there is no discrimination going on here to stop. As I said, I could hand a copy of the job ad and an application form personally to every black person in New York without injuring Ron in any way.

drkitten

27th April 2009, 03:20 PM

So let's stop "giving points" to people that are not white, financially stable, middle-aged males,

There are no "points" here to be given. How do you "stop" something that's not happening in the first place?

and make hiring, promoting, demoting, and firing based solely on whether or not the person does the job (which should always include getting along well with co-workers).

... and tell me again how inviting someone to apply for a job is making a decision about "hiring, promoting, demoting, or firing"?

This practice was recommended precisely because preventing someone from applying is implicitly making a negative hiring decision. By extension, so is discouraging someone from applying or (alternative formulation) encouraging them NOT to apply. But encouraging them to apply is not a positive hiring decision. Even accepting an application from someone is not a positive hiring decision, or we'd have hired 500+ people the last time we had a faculty opening.

And, yes, we had that language in the ad. (Legal insisted.) We ended up hiring a white male anyway, because he was the best candidate.

shuize

27th April 2009, 03:22 PM

Not at all. This is a call for applicants. No one is being judged at all yet.

You know why I don't like it? Because it perpetuates the idea that race matters.

drkitten

27th April 2009, 03:30 PM

Safe-Keeper

27th April 2009, 03:36 PM

You know why I don't like it? Because it perpetuates the idea that race matters.'Race' does matter, unfortunately. Encouraging minorities to apply doesn't perpetuate this notion, it accepts and counters it.

Marduk

27th April 2009, 04:10 PM

hehe a lot of job applications in the UK have
we are an equal opportunities employer
and then immediately after asks
what is your ethnic origin

:D

shuize

27th April 2009, 04:50 PM

... We can certainly agree that race should not matter. But few would say that it does not matter.

'Race' does matter, unfortunately ...

It's my belief that the more emphasis we place on race and the more people are told that "race matters" the farther we get from the goal of being judged on the content of one's character.

Madalch

27th April 2009, 04:52 PM

I can't remember the last time I saw an ad that didn't contain a phrase along the lines of "....We welcome diversity and encourage applications from all qualified women and men, including persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities, and Aboriginal persons."

(This would be in Canada, by the way, so such encouragements are not restricted to the USA.)

six7s

27th April 2009, 04:55 PM

.
"Proactive Measures" <-- "Affirmative Action" <-- "Reverse Discrimination"

Those euphemisms keep piling up.They only pile up where there are barriers

Ron_Tomkins

27th April 2009, 05:36 PM

Yes, for several reasons.

First, getting "a more diverse faculty" is a legally recognized good thing. If nothing else, it helps provide role models for the diverse student body they will be getting -- and gets the EEOC off their back.

Second, they can catch hell from the EEOC if their applicant pool isn't diverse enough (because one typical way of expressing discrimination was through overt or covert "that type need not apply." If 100% of your applicants are white males, then that's pretty good evidence that your recruitment policies are discriminatory.

So phrases like "strongly encouraged to apply" tend to become part of the standard HR boilerplate, specifically so that HR can show the EEOC that they are, in fact, taking proactive measures to increase the number of traditionally underrepresented groups in the applicant pool.

I see

As ironic as I find it, yes, that does make sense

Wowbagger

27th April 2009, 05:59 PM

Applicants of color strongly encouraged to apply I would not have phrased it, that way. I would probably rephrase it like this:

Applicants of any and all races, cultures, backgrounds, etc. are encouraged to apply!

Though, I would also be tempted to add: "We take pride in our meritocracy".

fuelair

27th April 2009, 06:04 PM

If that's the case, then I hope that none of the applications in any way indicate what the color of a person's skin -- or their age, culture, ethnicity, gender, nationality, and so forth -- might be. Only in a truly fair and equitable meritocracy would such things not matter.

I'm sorry DK, but after losing out on promotions to less-qualified "people of color" (and less-qualified women, as well) back in the 1980's (and sticking around long enough to see them get fired for incompetence), I'm a little reluctant to believe that any job description that even mentions such things is truly on the level.

But that's just me, right?No, it's just me too - my favorite (not me) one was back in 1972. A very highly qualified man was up for a position - he was number 1 for it by a large break (the next two were - as phrased by the man who told me of this - both a distant third). The man who told me of this was head of one of the three largest of the type of agency in the state and was on the committee to select the next person who would run the state version of it (I will provide the actual names only to Dr. K if she doubts the story). Essentially, the governor and he were discussing the situation and he pleaded with the governor to put the man in as he was vastly more qualified than the man or woman below him. The governor's response was: "The X Republican Women's Committee has been climbing my ass about putting a woman into some higher position. If you can find me a place where a woman can do less harm you can have (top candidate)!" I was told the story because I was in his city representing the state agency and apparently something about me encourages people to tell me stuff.

Ron_Tomkins

27th April 2009, 08:08 PM

I would not have phrased it, that way. I would probably rephrase it like this:

Applicants of any and all races, cultures, backgrounds, etc. are encouraged to apply!

Though, I would also be tempted to add: "We take pride in our meritocracy".

Agreed

Oh and that's a cool new avatar, dude

Darth Rotor

27th April 2009, 08:14 PM

Don't see the problem. If it said "Whites need not apply" I'd understand it, but this? No problem at all. They're encouraging diversity on campus, nothing more.
Applicants of color strongly encouraged to apply
Methinks you don't understand what you just said.

DR

Darth Rotor

27th April 2009, 08:17 PM

hehe a lot of job applications in the UK have

and then immediately after asks

:D
For the past fifteen years, my response to that question has been

Other

None of the categories fit me, thanks.

DR

linusrichard

27th April 2009, 11:04 PM

You know why I don't like it? Because it perpetuates the idea that race matters.

Perpetuating the truth is rarely something I object to.

We can certainly agree that race should not matter. But few would say that it does not matter.

'Race' does matter, unfortunately. Encouraging minorities to apply doesn't perpetuate this notion, it accepts and counters it.

It's my belief that the more emphasis we place on race and the more people are told that "race matters" the farther we get from the goal of being judged on the content of one's character.

It's my belief that the ultimate badge of white privilege is the ability to ignore white privilege.

(I'm not sure how that applies to shuize, who is either not white or a minority (or both), but that's just what the post made me think of.)

Redtail

27th April 2009, 11:53 PM

It's you.

Bottom line is that it's an art. Perception counts for a lot. It's not like it said "Whites need not apply."

Fiona

28th April 2009, 01:02 AM

@Soapy Sam. As has been mentioned I think the phrase used in this country to express the same thing is " we are an equal opportunities employer" or something close to that.

Where I live there is not a wide spread of ethnic diversity compared to some places in England and so I cannot speak to what happens about that. But I have a friend who works in the tax office and up to relatively recently (about 10 years ago) this was the situation:

The lowest grade of entry was from outside, obviously. Like most employers the civil service goes to some lengths to avoid any bias in recruitment, and at that grade here there was a relatively equal mix of males and females.

The next tier is selected through internal promotion: the gender balance was not so good. Now of itself that does not tell you very much: the lowest grade is poorly paid and the one up is not much better so there is a fair turnover of staff and they are mostly young: perhaps women leave in greater numbers and so there are fewer qualified and experienced women in the pool: I do not know

The tier up from that was very largely recruited from outside through an exam (there is some internal promotion throughout as well at all grades), and again the numbers are fairly equal for men and women.

But the route up from there is again by promotion and again that tier had more men than women. A lot more as it happens. This is not so easily explicable because for this level of entry one needed a degree and it was a career grade rather than a job.

The level above that was again recruited from outside through exam and then a variety of interviews and other tests over three days: and again the numbers were pretty equal. Thereafter the career progression was all by promotion: and at each subsequent level there was increasing preponderance of men.

Now it is possible that this was coincidence: there are arguably different life choices which might account for some of it: time off to have babies is often adduced, for example, and that is a whole separate issue. But it does not seem to account for all of it and there is anecdotal and research evidence on the bias inherent on internal promotion which DR Kitten will know more about than I do

From my perspective it seems undeniable that there was discrimination of various sorts in the past: gender and race are the most obvious. I do not think it has vanished though I think efforts to counter it have made some impact and I hope they will make more

But discrimination against one group necessarily entails positive discrimination in favour of another: many white males have enjoyed positive discrimination and taken it for granted fro a long time. That is why many of them have their jobs. It is not on merit alone. They do not seem to have been awfully unhappy about positive discrimination when it was working in their favour and they are not apparently unhappy about it now when that is the case.

It is also true that some of those same men have identified the problem and been working to change it: that is inevitable because in many organisations they are the people who make the policy decisions and so they get credit for taking steps to change it. Not only them, but they are clearly heavily involved. I do not suggest any conspiracy or any conscious will to discrimination: I do suggest that those forces are subtle and often unintended (along the lines of "like recruits like" and that kind of thing): and also that those processes are strong and hard to change

We are trying to change them. Some of the strategies to achieve that will be silly and some will be ineffective: but some will work. Along the way there may well be some injustice against white men: and that is never right. But neither is positive discrimination in favour of them right: and the loss of it is hard to take I am sure.

Fnord has been a victim of some injustice it seems: I fully accept that. But how would we know if he had not? There will be people who claim that same experience who are in fact not the best person for the job, just as there are women and black people who claim their own particular failure to gain promotion is based on prejudice when it is in fact wholly related to merit.

We cannot sort it out on the basis of anecdote: but where there are bigger numbers involved we can say what is happening with more certainty. That is why there are questionnaires about ethnicity, gender and disability. It is an attempt to identify where there are problems and also sometimes to plot the efficacy of steps taken to address them.

How does anybody lose anything respectable out of that?

Darat

28th April 2009, 01:25 AM

Interesting.
I wonder if it would be prevented by equal opps rules here?
I should confess that now I think about it , I haven't studied many job ads for a couple of decades. There may be an equivalent.

There is - it tends to be worded along the lines of "Company X is an equal opportunities employer and encourages applications from all candidates irrespective of gender, ethnicity, age, disability and religious belief".

drkitten

28th April 2009, 07:02 AM

hehe a lot of job applications in the UK have "we are an equal opportunities employer"

and then immediately after asks "What is your ethnic background."

Actually, that makes sense. For enforcement reasons. The law is not required to take your word for it that you actually are an equal opportunity employer, and in fact would be foolish to do so. Especially if someone sued and alleged discrimination. Anyone can put anything they like into an ad, but the real question is what happens when an application from a minority comes in.

I had a somewhat similar situation -- not involving race, but personal privacy -- a few years ago with the local Human Subjects committee. I wanted to run a fully anonymous psych experiment. You wander in, I give you a copy of the information telling you what the experiment is and a fiver, you do the experiment, and you leave. That way, I don't even know your name and I can't accidentally leak what I don't know.

Human Subjects wouldn't let me. Because if I didn't have a signed information acknowledgment form from every participant, I couldn't prove that I had actually given the subjects the necessary information. And if someone had turned around and sued the university, we wouldn't have had any defense. So even though the federal regulations ostensibly allowed anonymous experiments, in practical terms, the documentation requirements demanded that I track people individually only to show that I had informed them of their privacy rights....

It's the same principle, more or less. You need to track race to show that it isn't a source of significant bias if challenged.

Thanz

28th April 2009, 08:32 AM

I'm just wondering what's the criteria under which they strongly urge applicants of color to apply. Is there any particular relevance to the fact that someone is a person of color when it comes to teaching music?

Well, yes, there is. A person of color will be able to teach the students to clap on the 2 and 4, rather than only on the 1 and 3.

Ron_Tomkins

28th April 2009, 12:19 PM

There is - it tends to be worded along the lines of "Company X is an equal opportunities employer and encourages applications from all candidates irrespective of gender, ethnicity, age, disability and religious belief".

That's how I think it should have been worded. Phrasing it as if a specific ethnic group was preferred sounds just wrong

Ron_Tomkins

28th April 2009, 12:21 PM

Well, yes, there is. A person of color will be able to teach the students to clap on the 2 and 4, rather than only on the 1 and 3.

:D

As matter of fact, Barry Harris (http://www.barryharris.com/) says that one should clap on 2 and 4 and tap their foot on 1 and 3. Then he gives this sort of poetic explanation, saying that Hell is below and that that's where 1 and 3 belong, and that 2 and 4 should be clapped and never the other way around

He's really something

Dorian Gray

29th April 2009, 06:00 PM

Psst....white is a color...

six7s

29th April 2009, 06:14 PM

Psst....white is a color...
I protest the discrimination against all invisible people!:)

Sir Robin Goodfellow

29th April 2009, 07:01 PM

linusrichard

29th April 2009, 07:55 PM

I've seen ads that said that Aboriginal applicants will be given preferential consideration for the job. These jobs were all on-reserve, like casinos, dental office staff, clerical positions in the band offices, and so on. The last time I was at a casino it looked like the employees were mostly aboriginal, but there was a not insignificant number of white people working there too. Of course, it's not always evident who is aboriginal and who is white just by looking at them.

I don't know what country you're in (Canada?), but in the US, Indian hiring preferences are a completely different ballpark. For one thing, they aren't considered racial hiring preferences, because they're limited to members of federally recognized Indian tribes, which is a political, not a racial or ethnic identification (although it obviously coincides with racial/ethnic identity). For another, Indian tribes are sovereign nations, and largely outside of most state and some federal laws, and outside the US Constitution as well. I think the situation is somewhat similar in Canada.

Brattus

29th April 2009, 08:35 PM

I've seen ads that said that Aboriginal applicants will be given preferential consideration for the job. These jobs were all on-reserve, like casinos, dental office staff, clerical positions in the band offices, and so on. The last time I was at a casino it looked like the employees were mostly aboriginal, but there was a not insignificant number of white people working there too. Of course, it's not always evident who is aboriginal and who is white just by looking at them.

I don't have any problem with encouraging people from minority groups to apply for jobs, or even hiring someone because they are from a minority group, as long as they are also very qualified. Meaning, if a black person and a white person are the two best qualified candidates for a position, and they're more or less equal in terms of experience, education, personality, and so on, then ethnicity could be used as a "tiebreaker". Yeah, that's not fair in a way, but life isn't always fair to everybody, all the time.

Well then, what are all the people of color bitchin' about then?
It's only good if it benefits them? Racism is racism!
You can't have it gone and still apply to certain people.
It doesn't work that way.
Racism towards anybody is wrong.
But with all that said, a company should be able to hire ANYBODY of ANY color they want to work for them! Without ANY government telling them otherwise!
Government enforced racism is not only wrong but also completely unneeded.
The President of color and the United States proves that!

Sir Robin Goodfellow

29th April 2009, 11:24 PM

I think what the minorities were "bitchin' about" was the fact that nobody would ever give them a chance anywhere because Indians are drunks, Jews are sneaky, and the darkies will steal from you. And that was perfectly fine with the majority of people, who happened to also be the ones who got all those jobs that those coloured folks couldn't be trusted to do.

I'm not sure how I feel about continuing affirmative action programs in the present, more enlightened time. I haven't given the idea a lot of thought. However, I must say that the government doesn't tell my employer that they must have a certain number of (X) group on staff. My boss can't tell a prospective employee that he doesn't hire female mechanics, but he's not required to automatically hire any that apply.

I can see why some employers actively try to recruit minorities and women. The RCMP loves to see aboriginal and female applicants, because they want the police to reflect the makeup of society.

pipelineaudio

29th April 2009, 11:45 PM

If there was any industry in which you could without any question of an inkling of a doubt, state that minorities AREN'T under represented, the music business would certainly be the first that springs to my mind.

six7s

29th April 2009, 11:54 PM

I'm not sure how I feel about continuing affirmative action programs in the present, more enlightened time. I haven't given the idea a lot of thought. Try saying the exact same but without the word more and see if you notice a subtle yet significant difference

I'm not sure how I feel about continuing affirmative action programs in the present, enlightened time.

Waddaya reckon?

Camillus

30th April 2009, 04:56 AM

I no longer get to see the name, age, sex or home address of any of the people who are applying for jobs in my department. HR remove the biographical information and I shortlist based entirely on what's in the body of the application. I only find out the name (but not the sex, age or race) of the applicant if we invite them for interview.

I can usually work out age from the qualifications of the candidate and sex is somtimes given away by the name of where they went to school or college but unless they're an overseas candidate race is usually impossible to guess.

I have to say that I prefer it this way because I can be completely honest in my assessment of the application without worrying that I'm not giving someone a fair chance because of an unconscious prejudice.

Sir Robin Goodfellow

30th April 2009, 06:40 AM

Try saying the exact same but without the word more and see if you notice a subtle yet significant difference
I'm not sure how I feel about continuing affirmative action programs in the present, enlightened time.
Waddaya reckon?

I know what you're saying. In terms of bigotry and discrimination, it's definitely not 1950 anymore, or even 1975. I'm not going to say that everything is fixed now, everyone accepts everyone else as equals, though. There is still plenty of old-school, boy's club thinking about hiring practices. Is it bad enough that we need official rules to counter it? I don't know.

Soapy Sam

30th April 2009, 07:10 AM

Actually, that makes sense. For enforcement reasons...
...It's the same principle, more or less. You need to track race to show that it isn't a source of significant bias if challenged.

Yes I can see that. I find I prefer the UK version of the wording as given by several posters. It seems more neutral.
I wonder how many employers truly are "equal opportunity" though. I don't see many white people with degrees cleaning the toilets at Heathrow, for example.

Which reminds me- At Schipol, the toilet cleaners tend to be Islamic ladies (I suspect Moluccan) . As the loos are always busy, they just wander in and mop the floors without troubling to close the place. This bothers me not at all, but watching the reactions of some men who go in and find women cleaning the floor can be pretty amusing.
I wonder what that job ad says about opportunities?

Soapy Sam

30th April 2009, 07:16 AM

I no longer get to see the name, age, sex or home address of any of the people who are applying for jobs in my department.

I have to say that I prefer it this way because I can be completely honest in my assessment of the application without worrying that I'm not giving someone a fair chance because of an unconscious prejudice.

Does HR retype the applications ? I'm wondering about bias due to things like handwriting, spelling etc?
It's reminiscent of the online anonymity at a forum like this , where you can never knoiw if the poster is a 13 year old black female or a 93 year old Japanese Yakuza boss.

This bothered me initially, because I had been conditioned to be politer to some people (especially Yakuza gangbosses), but now I'm equally rude to everyone. I'm unsure if this is a step forward.

JohnnyG

30th April 2009, 08:40 AM

...there is no possible way that it violates YOUR rights when I encourage someone else to apply for a job.

I'm not sure I fully agree with that statement. I think to test it, the verbage should still be acceptable if it was inverted. For example, I suspect there would be valid claims of discrimination if the sentence in question were changed to "Whites strongly encouraged to apply." Yet by your reasoning nobody is being discouraged so there should be no problem.

Years ago, when I was first promoted to a management position at a major corporation, I went through a rigorous training program that included EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) topics. One item that was strongly emphasized stood out in my mind as being highly problematic. The government specified criteria for a valid EEO policy violation was not whether harm was done or even intended, it is whether or not somebody was offended. This is why you have politicans resigning because they used the word "niggardly" or being asked to apologise for using the astonomical term "black hole".

Beerina

30th April 2009, 09:07 AM

I'm just wondering what's the criteria under which they strongly urge applicants of color to apply. Is there any particular relevance to the fact that someone is a person of color when it comes to teaching music?

Of course not. It satisfies quotas, and music is a nonsense category. It's similar to the United States being loaded with female Vice Presidents of Human Resources Departments. It improves their overall look, while shunting the token off into a non-core area.

GreNME

30th April 2009, 09:13 AM

Of course not. It satisfies quotas, and music is a nonsense category. It's similar to the United States being loaded with female Vice Presidents of Human Resources Departments. It improves their overall look, while shunting the token off into a non-core area.

I suppose I must once again point out this page (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm) on the most popular myths about Affirmative Action. The quoted post covers #9 and #10 in the list of myths-- which in my experience have been the two most popularly-propagated myths whenever the discussion comes up.

TraneWreck

30th April 2009, 10:46 AM

I suppose I must once again point out this page (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm) on the most popular myths about Affirmative Action. The quoted post covers #9 and #10 in the list of myths-- which in my experience have been the two most popularly-propagated myths whenever the discussion comes up.

This is a good link, it pretty much explains why all the hand wringing from people about "reverse discrimination" is so ignorantly obnoxious.

The single group that has benefited most from Affirmative Action has been white women. I find that this usually helps people understand the process: For god knows how long law schools and law firms refused to engage women. I know an attorney who couldn't find a job as a woman in the 70's. She had to start her own firm from scratch and is now incredibly successful.

It was complete discrimination, women were simply not considered for any legal position. Then authorities stepped in and demanded that law schools take women and demanded that law firms hire women. My 21st century law school class was 50/50 men and women. The two best students, who are now clerking for the Supreme Court, were both women. There is no difference in quality of lawyers between men and women.

None of that would have come about without Affirmative Action. When a group is in complete control they have no incintive to relinquish their dominance. Equality of opportunity requires effort, it doesn't simply come about through slogans and cutlural myths.

Father Dagon

30th April 2009, 10:49 AM

Don't see the problem. If it said "Whites need not apply" I'd understand it, but this? No problem at all. They're encouraging diversity on campus, nothing more.By reducing it to the color of the skin, as they can't see any deeper than that.

TraneWreck: Who is the gentleman on your avatar? Because he reminds me of Thomas Sowell who pointed out that blacks was stars in music and sports while still being legally discriminated.

BPSCG

30th April 2009, 11:05 AM

TraneWreck

30th April 2009, 11:16 AM

Professional sports?

To paraphrase Chris Rock: Shaq is rich, but the guy that signs Shaq's check is wealthy---"here you go, Shaq, go buy yourself one of them bouncin' cars."

How many minorities sign checks in professional sports?

That's not to say I disagree with your point, they are well represented as players, but coaching and front office positions are still largely held by whitey.

Also, the absurd money made by athletes is largely fool's gold: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364/index.htm

Of course, going broke when you have a salary of $5 million a year means that you're problem is one of stupidity, not opportunity, but lack of opportunity in fields like finance, the law, and something like real estate leaves dumb people with lots of money out on a limb, by themselves.

BPSCG

30th April 2009, 11:38 AM

To paraphrase Chris Rock: Shaq is rich, but the guy that signs Shaq's check is wealthy---"here you go, Shaq, go buy yourself one of them bouncin' cars."

How many minorities sign checks in professional sports?True, but that's not because of some racial barrier; there just aren't nearly as many black plutocrats as there are white ones. Yet. Of course, Robert Johnson owns the NBA Charlotte Bobcats.

Can't speak to the front-office situation without doing a whole bunch of research I don't have time for. Frank Robinson got appointed to some big-time major league baseball job this past week.

As far as field managers go - well, pro sports is way ahead of the curve here. I think there are nine black NBA head coaches. We just had a Super Bowl a couple of years ago where both coaches were black. Baseball has plenty of black managers - the Mets' Jerry Manuel is black, and replaced Willie Randolph, also black. And the important thing is, you never hear that a coach was hired - or fired - because of the color of his skin.

Also, the absurd money made by athletes is largely fool's gold: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364/index.htm

Of course, going broke when you have a salary of $5 million a year means that you're problem is one of stupidity, not opportunity, but lack of opportunity in fields like finance, the law, and something like real estate leaves dumb people with lots of money out on a limb, by themselves.Not sure what you're saying here. You don't need a degree in high finance to figure out how to live comfortably for the rest of your life after you've made $5 million a year for 5-10 years. A certain amount of common sense (live on a lot less than what you make), and a certain amount of basic financial education that you can buy at your local community college should be more than sufficient.

But that's a topic for another thread.

Camillus

30th April 2009, 11:45 AM

Does HR retype the applications ? I'm wondering about bias due to things like handwriting, spelling etc?
It's reminiscent of the online anonymity at a forum like this , where you can never knoiw if the poster is a 13 year old black female or a 93 year old Japanese Yakuza boss.

This bothered me initially, because I had been conditioned to be politer to some people (especially Yakuza gangbosses), but now I'm equally rude to everyone. I'm unsure if this is a step forward.

All applications are on line, typed by the applicant. Unfortunately there's no spell checker built in so I just have to grit my teeth on that one.

six7s

30th April 2009, 11:46 AM

There is still plenty of old-school, boy's club thinking about hiring practices. Is it bad enough that we need official rules to counter it? I don't know.I don't know, either

My guess is:maybe we (the majority) don't need official rules, but it probably won't hurt to have them, and maybe they'll help minorities feel better about our society and their role in it

Sir Robin Goodfellow

30th April 2009, 11:52 AM

This is a good link, it pretty much explains why all the hand wringing from people about "reverse discrimination" is so ignorantly obnoxious.

The single group that has benefited most from Affirmative Action has been white women. I find that this usually helps people understand the process: For god knows how long law schools and law firms refused to engage women. I know an attorney who couldn't find a job as a woman in the 70's. She had to start her own firm from scratch and is now incredibly successful.

It was complete discrimination, women were simply not considered for any legal position. Then authorities stepped in and demanded that law schools take women and demanded that law firms hire women. My 21st century law school class was 50/50 men and women. The two best students, who are now clerking for the Supreme Court, were both women. There is no difference in quality of lawyers between men and women.

None of that would have come about without Affirmative Action. When a group is in complete control they have no incintive to relinquish their dominance. Equality of opportunity requires effort, it doesn't simply come about through slogans and cutlural myths.

Good example. Medicine is probably a field that experienced the same phenomenon.

Sir Robin Goodfellow

30th April 2009, 11:53 AM

I don't know, either

My guess is:
maybe we (the majority) don't need official rules, but it probably won't hurt to have them, and maybe they'll help minorities feel better about our society and their role in it

Yes, I think that's probably close to the truth.

six7s

30th April 2009, 12:00 PM

TraneWreck

30th April 2009, 12:03 PM

True, but that's not because of some racial barrier; there just aren't nearly as many black plutocrats as there are white ones. Yet. Of course, Robert Johnson owns the NBA Charlotte Bobcats.

Can't speak to the front-office situation without doing a whole bunch of research I don't have time for. Frank Robinson got appointed to some big-time major league baseball job this past week.

As far as field managers go - well, pro sports is way ahead of the curve here. I think there are nine black NBA head coaches. We just had a Super Bowl a couple of years ago where both coaches were black. Baseball has plenty of black managers - the Mets' Jerry Manuel is black, and replaced Willie Randolph, also black. And the important thing is, you never hear that a coach was hired - or fired - because of the color of his skin.

Compared to the percentage of players who are black, the major sports, with the exception of the NBA which is pretty good on this front, minorities are grossly underrepresented in coaching. In Division I football, for example, 50% of the players are black, only 7/120 head coaches are black.

Not sure what you're saying here. You don't need a degree in high finance to figure out how to live comfortably for the rest of your life after you've made $5 million a year for 5-10 years. A certain amount of common sense (live on a lot less than what you make), and a certain amount of basic financial education that you can buy at your local community college should be more than sufficient.

But that's a topic for another thread.

I agree 100% with your assessment of how to avoid going broke on $5 million a year, my point goes to why there is such a disparity between the financial abilities of black and white athletes. Anyone who has spent time around white athletes knows that the difference is not one of intelligence.

I would argue that black athletes (and other entertainers) going broke has a great deal to do with that community's understanding of and relationship to money. This is, of course, a broad generalization, but when no one in your world is a banker, a broker, an executive, a lawyer, an accountant, a real estate agent, or any other profession that focuses either directly or indirectly on finance, how and when are you going to learn to be responsible with money?

My argument is that the traditional discrimination against minorities (especially African Americans) in those fields has a great deal to do with such a staggering percentage of black athletes going broke.

I know this wasn't your argument, I'm not trying to criticize you, mearly discuss a tangential issue, but pointing towards minority representation in sports shows how even when numbers can identify a technical equality, on the broad level there are still massive gaps in both achievement and opportunity.

Robster, FCD

30th April 2009, 12:17 PM

Well, about 70k years ago, my descendants left Africa, but were originally from Ethiopia, about 170k years ago.

One side of my family are Irish, via Normand invasion, and earlier still, Viking settlers of Normandy. The other side are Scottish, but before that were Hungarian mercenaries, who fought the Normand invaders for some lovely gold, and before that were petty nobles who raided their neighbors until the pope pointed out that if they didn't unite, the Turks would run roughshod over them.

Does that qualify me for anything, other than too well informed?

BPSCG

30th April 2009, 12:35 PM

Compared to the percentage of players who are black, the major sports, with the exception of the NBA which is pretty good on this front, minorities are grossly underrepresented in coaching. In Division I football, for example, 50% of the players are black, only 7/120 head coaches are black.Well, does that say that the coaches are underrepresented, or that the players are overrepresented (or both)? Blacks account for only about 10% of the general population. Is a "proportionate" representation of black coaches based on the numbers of black players? Or is it based on the proportion of blacks to the population at large?

If the latter, then two or three black baseball managers (out of 26 teams) would be proportional. If the former, then the number would be more like 50%.

(Of course, then you get into trying to analyze the proportions of players who are both black and hispanic. That way lies madness...)

I agree 100% with your assessment of how to avoid going broke on $5 million a year, my point goes to why there is such a disparity between the financial abilities of black and white athletes. Anyone who has spent time around white athletes knows that the difference is not one of intelligence.
I would agree (Mickey Mantle was one of my childhood idols; I learned later in life that he was as dumb as a box of rocks, and less likable when drunk, to boot), but that appears at odds with something you said above:

Of course, going broke when you have a salary of $5 million a year means that you're problem is one of stupidity...Did you leave out a "not" in there?

I would argue that black athletes (and other entertainers) going broke has a great deal to do with that community's understanding of and relationship to money. This is, of course, a broad generalization, but when no one in your world is a banker, a broker, an executive, a lawyer, an accountant, a real estate agent, or any other profession that focuses either directly or indirectly on finance, how and when are you going to learn to be responsible with money?That's a subject worthy of all kinds of studies, and the reasons are probably even more complex than what you've described.

FWIW, the Washington Post runs a regular personal finance column that is clearly aimed at the black community, called "The Color of Money," by Michelle Singletary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032400142.html). Mrs. BPSCG and I are big fans, despite our being persons of pallor, because it's a great column. It's basic and not-so-basic finance, full of good sense and "Why-didn't-I-think-of-that?" ideas (example: Whenever you get a raise, immediately start putting half of it in the bank and use the rest to improve your standard of living). Any 20-year-old athlete getting $2 million when he gets drafted should have her column sent straight to his iPhone every week; if he follows her advice, he'll never have to work again when he tears up his knee at the age of 25.

TraneWreck

30th April 2009, 01:05 PM

Well, does that say that the coaches are underrepresented, or that the players are overrepresented (or both)? Blacks account for only about 10% of the general population. Is a "proportionate" representation of black coaches based on the numbers of black players? Or is it based on the proportion of blacks to the population at large?

If the latter, then two or three black baseball managers (out of 26 teams) would be proportional. If the former, then the number would be more like 50%.

(Of course, then you get into trying to analyze the proportions of players who are both black and hispanic. That way lies madness...)

I would say that you have to compare it to the playing population. The only real way to gain the qualifications to become a coach is to play the game. I suppose there are a few notable examples of people rising up the coaching ranks without ever seriously playing the game, but for the most part you need some in-game experience. Thus the pool of qualified people able to fill a coaching vacacy will be made up of a significantly higher percentage of African Americans than the general population.

I would also point out that we generally use contemporary statistics (the NCAA footbal example was from earlier in April, 2009), but that is after years and years of intense work to level the field.

I would agree (Mickey Mantle was one of my childhood idols; I learned later in life that he was as dumb as a box of rocks, and less likable when drunk, to boot), but that appears at odds with something you said above:

Did you leave out a "not" in there?

I went to a Big12 university on a baseball scholarship, so I feel confident saying that American male athletes of all backgrounds are pretty stupid. THat SI article shows that black athletes go broke at a significantly higher rate than white athletes. Both populations are equally intellectually challenged, therefore we can't simply dismiss the failure as stupidity. However, I consider stupidity a necessary, but not sufficient condition for going broke on a $5 million salary.

Look, LeBron James and Michael Jordan are shrewd men. They will not be among the population that goes broke. MJ was from a solid family in North Carolina that was reasonably well to do, and he graduated college. James grew up in a tumultuous environment in Dayton, Ohio, and never went to college. James is in the target demographic for African American athletes that squander their fortune, but he has continually made good decisions. He isn't stupid, therefore he won't be going broke.

That being said, for the discussion at hand I should probably substitute the word "ignorant" for "stupid" in so far as this discussion is concerned.

That's a subject worthy of all kinds of studies, and the reasons are probably even more complex than what you've described.

I don't doubt that for a second.

FWIW, the Washington Post runs a regular personal finance column that is clearly aimed at the black community, called "The Color of Money," by Michelle Singletary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032400142.html). Mrs. BPSCG and I are big fans, despite our being persons of pallor, because it's a great column. It's basic and not-so-basic finance, full of good sense and "Why-didn't-I-think-of-that?" ideas (example: Whenever you get a raise, immediately start putting half of it in the bank and use the rest to improve your standard of living). Any 20-year-old athlete getting $2 million when he gets drafted should have her column sent straight to his iPhone every week; if he follows her advice, he'll never have to work again when he tears up his knee at the age of 25.

I know most major sports have all sorts of mentoring programs and seminars to try and educate them. I'm not sure a column, or even an intensive program can do much to overcome 22 years of social conditioning. If you remember, a Miami Heat rookie, Mario Chalmers, was caught in possession of weed at the drug education program for first year NBA players.

It would at least be nice if we didn't have to play this bizarre game where we pretend a 6'10" guy with a 12 on his ACT is in college to get a social science degree. Just put them in courses that teach basic survival skills, like the info in that column you mentioned.

Like you say, the more we delve into this, the more there is to learn, but I think the increasing complexity itself shows that Afirmative Action and similar programs aimed at changing the sorry state of affairs in, for example, inner-city communities, should be continued rather than abandoned on some vague reverse discrimination grounds.