Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[Trazor]

So if a person from ethnicity A and a person from ethnicity B both apply and both meet the minimum requirement, but person from ethnicity B meets the preferred requirement in order to meet or maintain targets, they are employed.

What’s the problem?

It's racist.

Please elucidate.

Because person A was denied the job for racial reasons, ergo racism.

The best person for the job, should always take precedence, anything else is Racist or reverse Racism.

 

[Whitespirit66]

What's R O P?

Religion Of Peace.

I'm being ironic.

 

[Dextraneous]

What a bout if both candidates are equally as good, but by employing a certain ethnicity the company is more likely to appeal to a wider or new market which includes members of that particular ethnic group market, thus ensuring more contracts and jobs?

 

[Trazor]

What a bout if both candidates are equally as good, but by employing a certain ethnicity the company is more likely to appeal to a wider or new market which includes members of that particular ethnic group market, thus ensuring more contracts and jobs?

Economics does not come into it, if your choice is based on Race / colour then theoretically it's racist.

 

[Dextraneous]

What a bout if both candidates are equally as good, but by employing a certain ethnicity the company is more likely to appeal to a wider or new market which includes members of that particular ethnic group market, thus ensuring more contracts and jobs?

Economics does not come into it, if your choice is based on Race / colour then theoretically it's racist.

But what it economics did come into it? Would that still be racist or simply pragmatic?

 

[RogueHanger]

The easiest way to achieve that is to be seen to be reflecting the population in employment and delivery of services.

Not always possible because of differences in the groups.

So if a person from ethnicity A and a person from ethnicity B both apply and both meet the minimum requirement, but person from ethnicity B meets the preferred requirement in order to meet or maintain targets, they are employed.

What’s the problem?

It's racist.

I don't believe it! RH is showing racism

Please explain how.

If you have two groups A & B but you favour group B to make things somehow more representative of a cross section of society or balance, how do you imagine A would feel?

If you provide feedback, which every organisation striving for quality should be doing, then you would explain that although they met the skills criteria, they didn't meet the other 'preferable attributes' criteria.

As said elsewhere, the clue is in the word "discrimination". Putting positive in front doesn't mean it isn't still nonetheless discrimination.

Agreed, then you are differrentiating between that which is negative and that which is positive. The clue is in the description.

However you try and cut it, you have disadvantaged someone on their colour under a falsehood to make things fairer and in doing so discriminated against A based on colour!

It's not a falsehood. It's in line with stated policy.

When things are really that close, which would be the exception anyway, it would be fairer and non-discriminatory to have just pulled one of the two names out of a bag! At least then both A AND B would not feel aggrieved.

As previously explained, the ethnicity might be a preferable factor.

I cant' see a way out for you this time RH.

I'm not looking for a way out. I started this discussion.

[You don't start a football match by looking at the balance of colour on the pitch or in the stands and say "okay, that side gets to kick off". They flip a coin to make it fairer.

Not a reasonable analogy at all.

[You see, when you give RH enough rope he hangs himself.... (Certainly does it in style).

Ok, your interpretation of reality is giving you problems again.
Try to maintain a sensible discussion. It's much moe civilized.

 

[Trazor]

What a bout if both candidates are equally as good, but by employing a certain ethnicity the company is more likely to appeal to a wider or new market which includes members of that particular ethnic group market, thus ensuring more contracts and jobs?

Economics does not come into it, if your choice is based on Race / colour then theoretically it's racist.

But what it economics did come into it? Would that still be racist or simply pragmatic?

Simply put, if your choice is based on Race or colour, then irrespective of any other reasons, it's Racist.

 

[RogueHanger]

Looks like followers of the R O P can arrange their own positive discrimination, without the help of the hand-wringing intelligencia. Don't know which is more dangerous, the soft-headed coathanger types or the R O P followers themselves.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/jihadist-plot-take-over-birmingham-6782881

Also, has anyone ever noticed that those promoting loony-left policies like these are unlikely to be affected by them? Typical, hypocritical socialism.

In case you haven't been keeping up, the accusation is still under investigation. That means that no conclusion can be drawn yet.
But you have drawn your own conclusion already, I see.
BTW, that accusation was made by anonymous ex-employees if my memory serves me right.

 

[Dextraneous]

Simply put, if your choice is based on Race or colour, then irrespective of any other reasons, it's Racist.

OK - I can see what you're saying. However, if the economic benefits were as outlined, is this a bad racism or a good racism?

 

[RogueHanger]

Unless you stick a moat around an area, and prevent free movement in and out, and ensure that the geographical range of the corporate body exactly matches that of the population it serves, it will not be a true reflection of them.

Be sensible Brigadier. An organisation can and should work with the data it has, and apply updated data as and when it becomes available. I didn't suggest that an organisation should directly match the population at any one time, simply reflect it, in general.

What about if the distinct population doesn't want to abide by the laws or customs of the country as a whole? Do you have the "police" respecting that position?

That's a different problem requiring a different solution.

Or a distinct population of say, Jehovah's Witnesses, served by a reflective hospital, denying the children blood transfusions?

A different poblem/different solution.

On the general point of positive discrimination, I hear your previous point about adopting it, to force a previously-biased position the other way.

Please explain.

But I can't agree with it - two wrongs do not make a right.

How is it two wrongs?

Just draw a line in the sand, make a set of rules, and ensure that they are abided by.

Isn't that what the management have done, set targets?

 

[Big Tone]

I'm going to make this REAL simple for you, (as they say in America), and I would like a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer because it's really not rocket science.

You have two equal candidates in your analogy, A and B. They are of equal merit in some photo finish type interview which simply cannot be called either way.

Without mentioning which colour you have just favoured, (yes FAVOURED), have you or have you not just discriminated against one of the two candidates based on his or her colour? Yes or no RogueHanger???

You see, I would much rather pull their names out of a hat in the name of fairness rather than colour because, wait for it, that is racism by definition no matter how you sugar-coat it!

I put it to you, sir, that you are more racist than you think you are, how you portray yourself and how much you think I am.

Hec, I thought this would be much harder than it was when I suggested he start a different thread on this subject. But he's finally shown his true colours and my work here is done.

J'ai fini

(BTW. My desktop has gone t1ts up and I'm using my un-smart phone and lodgers laptop which is almost as crap. Cut slack until normal service is resumed).

 

[RogueHanger]

So if a person from ethnicity A and a person from ethnicity B both apply and both meet the minimum requirement, but person from ethnicity B meets the preferred requirement in order to meet or maintain targets, they are employed.

What’s the problem?

It's racist.

Please elucidate.

Because person A was denied the job for racial reasons, ergo racism.

The one candidate was successful due to ethnicity reasons. The other candidate wasn't successful.
If you perceive that as racism, then I can't help you any further, except to point out that racism colloquially has a negative meaning, whereas positive discrimination is persuing a positive result.

The best person for the job, should always take precedence, anything else is Racist or reverse Racism.

I did point out that the ethnicity of the successful candidate may have been a preferable attribute.
In practice I would guess that the organisation would have a range of ethnicities that they are looking to recruit.

 

[Dextraneous]

Is all racism a bad thing? Honest question.

 

[Trazor]

However, if the economic benefits were as outlined, is this a bad racism or a good racism?

Well, quite a few people made fortunes in the past, because of the economic benefits of employing slaves.

Depends on which side of the fence you sit.

 

[Dextraneous]

However, if the economic benefits were as outlined, is this a bad racism or a good racism?

Well, quite a few people made fortunes in the past, because of the economic benefits of employing slaves.

Depends on which side of the fence you sit.

Nicely ducked Although your suggestion of "positive" discrimination being akin to slavery is somewhat intriguing