Post by jengurl1987 on Jan 15, 2016 18:57:26 GMT -5
If someone is more qualified for a certain position than others are, that person should get the position, regardless of race or gender. It's just common business sense. Sorry for sounding like a Republican.
Jen is right, but in that context we should be considering the makeup of the interviewees. Certainly give the best one the job. But, for instance, if women are equally qualified for a job, and 50% of the applicants are women, surely it would seem wrong if no women are shortlisted.
The technique I used for shortlisting was called "equal opportunities interviewing" and imo it did work.
If someone of colour doesn't get a position because that person lacked the qualifications of others competing for the same job. To me, that isn't discrimination.
Unfortunately the US government has forced racial quotas for many private and almost all government businesses.
The consequences are; you no longer can necessarily hire the most qualified individual, and must choose a minority that may be far less qualified. It is contentious at least, but now systemic.
To make matters worse, discharging these people is far harder. So they have become entrenched and not much can be done about it.
My dad was passed over so many times for a promotion while teaching that instead went to a "quota qualified" person.
Interestingly, many states offered free tuition to women only that majored in education.
This was a blatant gender discrimination that my dad suffered for. He spent years paying for his own education, including grad schools, in engineering, only to be passed over by a younger woman, usually of color.
The result is that men teachers are almost non existent at lower grade levels. But, they do now get paid more than the women in some cases which in reality makes the discrimination complete, as double.
Government agencies are a study of inefficiency, inequality, and whatever, for sure.