The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

suicide_circus

sydthebeat wrote: »

80% >>>>>>>>>> 20%

Simple maths.

The whole reason to do this is to more closely represent their society, so no, 20% non white does not "leave whites way under represented"

Well yes, i got that. The question at hand is whether racial discrimination is the right way to achieve it.

biko

sydthebeat wrote: »

If they are making a target of have 20% of their staff non white....

Who exactly do you think fill the other 80%

1 they are not restricting non-whites as you implied.
2 20% of UK population is non-white so they re trying to be proportional.

Are you not ok with the proportion? What proportion would be ok with you?

listermint

suicide_circus wrote: »

Lol yeah funny way of looking at it. I suppose they mean a minimum of 20% non white, not maximum. Either way it would leave whites way under represented.

Explain ?...


With diagrams....

sydthebeat

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well yes, i got that. The question at hand is whether racial discrimination is the right way to achieve it.

So the question is... Should the BBC have a staff make up that more correctly represents society.

If the answer is yes, then how do they go about it, considering the current staff make up is completely unrepresentative of society.

suicide_circus

sydthebeat wrote: »

So the question is... Should the BBC have a staff make up that more correctly represents society.

If the answer is yes, then how do they go about it, considering the current staff make up is completely unrepresentative of society.

You are happy with racial discrimination being the route to that perfect pizza pie of representation and thats a point of view. I don't agree. If my son is denied an opportunity because of the amount of melanin in his skin, that's an issue. The same goes for anyone else's son. How far do we go with this pizza pie? "Correct" amount of gay people, blind people, bilingual people, Korean people, Christian people? Ever decreasing circles...

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

Any links?

I can believe social mobility increased for Asian kids but it wouldn't make sense across the board

https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/94/3/712/58001/The-Effects-of-Affirmative-Action-Bans-on-College

There's also this one from UC, which found that the ban on affirmative action increased the signaling value of attending the school among minorities.

https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/15/1/252/108515?redirectedFrom=fulltext

I have seen some papers (which I cannot currently find) that sugges that banning AA leads to minority students enrolling more in less selective schools, which ultimately causes a decrease in those people's wages by a few per cent when they're a decade out of the institution, but I've also seen other papers suggesting that minorities that are recruited to "elite" and selective schools on the basis of AA (as opposed to those minority students that are there on pure merit) are much more likely to drop out than those who attend less selective institutions on merit. Which seems worse than just being down 5% on a high-at-any-rate wage.

dubrov

suicide_circus wrote:

You are happy with racial discrimination being the route to that perfect pizza pie of representation and thats a point of view. I don't agree. If my son is denied an opportunity because of the amount of melanin in his skin, that's an issue. The same goes for anyone else's son.

That's ultimately what it comes down to. Do you agree with discrimination in the short term to achieve a more equitable society long term?

listermint

suicide_circus wrote: »

You are happy with racial discrimination being the route to that perfect pizza pie of representation and thats a point of view. I don't agree. If my son is denied an opportunity because of the amount of melanin in his skin, that's an issue. The same goes for anyone else's son.

Do you know anyone white that has been discriminated against for a job ? Anyone at all? Just one

larva

Im sick of government policy that discriminates against a persons outward appearance or sexual preference. I understand the basis for having multiple people of different backgrounds expressing their views o a panel or board but banning a person applying for a job based on the colour of their skin is bending the knee too far.

suicide_circus

listermint wrote: »

Do you know anyone white that has been discriminated against for a job ? Anyone at all? Just one

Anyone who applies for the job which is the subject of this thread

Tilden Katz

km991148 wrote: »

So moving on from positive discrimination, I'm looking for alternatives.

Why not suggest some yourself?

sydthebeat

suicide_circus wrote: »

You are happy with racial discrimination being the route to that perfect pizza pie of representation and thats a point of view. I don't agree. If my son is denied an opportunity because of the amount of melanin in his skin, that's an issue. The same goes for anyone else's son.

Obviously to date opportunities for people with a high level of melanin in their skin have been extremely limited. That's evident and quantifiable. So imagine how black fathers have been feeling for decades that their sons opportunities have been restricted due to the colour of their skin. If you get a little put out by the BBCs attempts to right that wrong, well eggs and omelettes come to mind.

suicide_circus

dubrov wrote: »

That's ultimately what it comes down to. Do you agree with discrimination in the short term to achieve a more equitable society long term?

It is no way certain that a more equitable society will be achieved via discrimination.

Girly Gal

Jobs should be got on merit, best person for the job should get it, irrespective of gender, race, creed or sexuality.

listermint

suicide_circus wrote: »

Anyone who applies for the job which is the subject of this thread

Do you know anyone white that has been discriminated against for any job ? At all.

Also note that there are multi ethnic policies across most large international organisations.

Again do you know anyone at all , just one ..

listermint

Girly Gal wrote: »

Jobs should be got on merit, best person for the job should get it, irrespective of gender, race, creed or sexuality.

Have you consider merit can also include perspective this can also come from gender , race or socio economic background.

suicide_circus

sydthebeat wrote: »

Obviously to date opportunities for people with a high level of melanin in their skin have been extremely limited. That's evident and quantifiable. So imagine how black fathers have been feeling for decades that their sons opportunities have been restricted due to the colour of their skin. If you get a little put out by the BBCs attempts to right that wrong, well eggs and omelettes come to mind.

The end justifies the means

suicide_circus

listermint wrote: »

Do you know anyone white that has been discriminated against for any job ? At all.

Also note that there are multi ethnic policies across most large international organisations.

Again do you know anyone at all , just one ..

I dont want to know such people, thats the point.

sydthebeat

suicide_circus wrote: »

The end justifies the means

Hopefully

suicide_circus

listermint wrote: »

Have you consider merit can also include perspective this can also come from gender , race or socio economic background.

Would you consider having a diversity of opinion as important as diversity of melanin content?

listermint

suicide_circus wrote: »

I dont want to know such people, thats the point.

So no you don't actually no anyone white that has ever been discriminated against for a job despite multi ethnic policies existing in majority of large MNCs

Grand.

So would you say your feeding irrational fear then ? And if not then why not because you have no evidence of these polices impacting white peoples participation in the workplace.

Strumms

dubrov wrote: »

It's about balancing company efficiency with social equity.

If it was all about efficient companies, you can forget about employee rights in general

...talent should rise to the top each time...regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality.

Hiring is a competitive process... where employers should choose new hires based on experience, qualifications, ability and personality...

Equity ? Sure, equity...
the quality of being fair and impartial.
"equity of treatment"

Be fair, be impartial, ignore race, gender, sexuality and hire based on experience, qualifications, ability and personality...

larva

listermint wrote: »

Do you know anyone white that has been discriminated against for any job ? At all.

Also note that there are multi ethnic policies across most large international organisations.

Again do you know anyone at all , just one ..

As part of my job, I know of loads of white males that have been looked over based on colour and gender quotas

listermint

suicide_circus wrote: »

Would you consider having a diversity of opinion as important as diversity of melanin content?

Do you think they are mutually exclusive?

listermint

larva wrote: »

As part of my job, I know of loads of white males that have been looked over based on colour and gender quotas

Have you evidence of this , some links and or court cases to back up your claim. Because it seems like something that would make the courts.

Girly Gal

listermint wrote: »

Have you consider merit can also include perspective this can also come from gender , race or socio economic background.

Hence why I said the best person for the job should get it

listermint

Girly Gal wrote: »

Hence why I said the best person for the job should get it

And let's say a company is hiring and they want to see more female voices in their organisation because the organisation is heavily skewed male and their customers are equally split.

Would you think that having a skewer towards a female hire might come with merit as best person for the job then .

suicide_circus

listermint wrote: »

Do you think they are mutually exclusive?

No indeed. I dont believe someone's perspective is based on melanin content. I believe people should be considered for a job based on the content of their character and CV, not what colour their skin is.

larva

listermint wrote: »

Have you evidence of this , some links and or court cases to back up your claim. Because it seems like something that would make the courts.

Yes i do. Its called government policy to give a particular position to a certain minority if they applied for the job and it helps fill a certain quota to bring parity ie not all white males but a 60/40% "diversity" just to make things appear more equitable.

listermint

larva wrote: »

Yes i do. Its called government policy to give a particular position to a certain minority if they applied for the job and it helps fill a certain quota to bring parity ie not all white males but a 60/40% "diversity" just to make things appear more equitable.

Okay can you provide some links to these cases please.

suicide_circus

Is it perhaps the case that the BBC is rejecting non white CVs en masse and this scheme is needed to redress the imbalance?

nialler1978

Happy Father Figures Day all!!!

(except for those that are white fathers that don’t identify as anything and are heterosexual and have had children through the natural channels of having sexual intercourse with the opposite gender, this day is now reserved for everything else other than the aforementioned)

larva

listermint wrote: »

Okay can you provide some links to these cases please.

There are no cases im aware of as you refer to, are you asking about court cases? Its common practice and government policy to give a woman the job even if she is the worst candidate from the seven other males that applied.

larva

listermint wrote: »

Okay can you provide some links to these cases please.

you can look at TV presenters and members of certain Boards as a prime example

listermint

larva wrote: »

There are no cases im aware of as you refer to, are you asking about court cases? Its common practice and government policy to give a woman the job even if she is the worst candidate from the seven other males that applied.

And who says she is the worst candidate if the goal here is to get a female perspective into that particular role ?
You? Wouldnt a man be the worst candidate if your goal is to offer fresh perspective i.e gender required to merit .

Would you agree or disagree men and women have different life experiences therefore can have entirely different perspectives on issues.

Girly Gal

listermint wrote: »

And let's say a company is hiring and they want to see more female voices in their organisation because the organisation is heavily skewed male and their customers are equally split.

Would you think that having a skewer towards a female hire might come with merit as best person for the job then .

That depends on the quality of the applications, it might be the case that within the applicants that there is a much more suitable male applicant, is it then fair for this male applicant to not be hired in favour of a less suitable female applicant, so that the company can fill a female quota. If the standard of male and female applicants for the job is similar then the company can choose to hire a female applicant in that case.

larva

nialler1978 wrote: »

Happy Father Figures Day all!!!

(except for those that are white fathers that don’t identify as anything and are heterosexual and have had children through the natural channels of having sexual intercourse with the opposite gender, this day is now reserved for everything else other than the aforementioned)

Its horrendous to be this type of abnormal human these days :pac:

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

Any links?

I can believe social mobility increased for Asian kids but it wouldn't make sense across the board

Why not, I saw a survey that most POCS in US elite universities are often from rich backgrounds.

The restrictions on whites in the US are often on working class or middle income whites. The rich whites are often preferred because as well as affirmative action for POCS, the elite schools in the US have affirmative action for white elites i.e. children of alumni, related to staff or benefactors; which probably explains why elite whites are often pro affirmative action. It doesn't affect them.

listermint

Girly Gal wrote: »

That depends on the quality of the applications, it might be the case that within the applicants that there is a much more suitable male applicant, is it then fair for this male applicant to not be hired in favour of an less suitable female applicant, so that the company can fill a female quota. If the standard of male and female applicants for the job is similar then the company can choose to hire a female applicant in that case.

But how would a man have a female perspective? I mean the same people arguing there are two specific genders and that women can't be men and visa versa , the usual suspects on this thread are in other forums going nuts about LGBT issues are over here arguing that men have a better female perspective for a role ..

Doesn't compute ?

larva

listermint wrote: »

And who says she is the worst candidate if the goal here is to get a female perspective into that particular role ?
You? Wouldnt a man be the worst candidate if your goal is to offer fresh perspective i.e gender required to merit .

Would you agree or disagree men and women have different life experiences therefore can have entirely different perspectives on issues.

It called looking at their curriculum vitae, it sort of goes like this, yes all these candidates are good but shes a woman so the job is heres, lets not bother interviewing.

Of course men and women have different perspectives, that doesnt mean you hire someone becuase you have too many men or vice versa. You hire the best, most suitable person.

listermint

nialler1978 wrote: »

Happy Father Figures Day all!!!

(except for those that are white fathers that don’t identify as anything and are heterosexual and have had children through the natural channels of having sexual intercourse with the opposite gender, this day is now reserved for everything else other than the aforementioned)

I'm a father, I'm white I'm married to my wife. I don't feel threatened in my life job or anything else.

Who's actually coming for you that makes you this snowflakey?

And when did this all start for you?

listermint

larva wrote: »

It called looking at their curriculum vitae, it sort of goes like this, yes all these candidates are good but shes a woman so the job is heres, lets not bother interviewing.

Of course men and women have different perspectives, that doesnt mean you hire someone becuase you have too many men or vice versa. You hire the best, most suitable person.

I think you'll find that not bothering interviewing is absolute nonsense. Of course the woman would be interviewed being female wouldn't guarantee the job plenty of women available.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

But how would a man have a female perspective? I mean the same people arguing there are two specific genders and that women can't be men and visa versa , the usual suspects on this thread are in other forums going nuts about LGBT issues are over here arguing that men have a better female perspective for a role ..

Doesn't compute ?

What does the lack of sequential hermaphroditism in homo sapiens have to do with "perspective"?

And how are, for example, women who are full-time home makers, or part-time workers, or full-time carers, served by the presence of ambitious career-women in companies? Do those ambitious career women whose children attend daycare have a better insight into the life of a home-maker than, for example, the male spouse of a home-maker?

larva

listermint wrote: »

I think you'll find that not bothering interviewing is absolute nonsense. Of course the woman would be interviewed being female wouldn't guarantee the job plenty of women available.

The phrase "Tongue in cheek" appears to be lost on you

listermint

listermint wrote: »

I think you'll find that not bothering interviewing is absolute nonsense. Of course the woman would be interviewed being female wouldn't guarantee the job plenty of women available.

Which woman would stand the best chance?
One born female and living life as one?
One born female but identifying as non binary?
One born female but transitioning to male?
One born male but transitioning to female?

So many choices! Confusing.

Girly Gal

listermint wrote: »

But how would a man have a female perspective? I mean the same people arguing there are two specific genders and that women can't be men and visa versa , the usual suspects on this thread are in other forums going nuts about LGBT issues are over here arguing that men have a better female perspective for a role ..

Doesn't compute ?

You're twisting what I said to suit yourself, shows that you're fine with discrimination then, not sure what you're on about going nuts in other forums about about LGBT issues?????

suicide_circus

listermint wrote: »

But how would a man have a female perspective? I mean the same people arguing there are two specific genders and that women can't be men and visa versa , the usual suspects on this thread are in other forums going nuts about LGBT issues are over here arguing that men have a better female perspective for a role ..

Doesn't compute ?

But how far you take it? People's identities can be reduced down a near infinite amount of times.

A man
a gay man
a fat gay man
a fat gay blind man
a fat gay blind man from London
a fat gay blind man from London with a working class upbringing
a fat gay blind man from London with a working class upbringing who is mixed race.
a fat gay blind man from London with a working class upbringing who is mixed race and gender non conforming

This utopia you seek will always elude you.

sydthebeat

I don't need to

The BBC have already said that they are misrepresented.

Read the OP

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What does the lack of sequential hermaphroditism in homo sapiens have to do with "perspective"?

And how are, for example, women who are full-time home makers, or part-time workers, or full-time carers, served by the presence of ambitious career-women in companies? Do those ambitious career women whose children attend daycare have a better insight into the life of a home-maker than, for example, the male spouse of a home-maker?

Why would it solely be ambitious career women? I work with plenty of mothers to multiple children. Their perspective to decision making is evidently going to be different to mine. We really value different perspectives rather than homogeneous Irish white middle class college educated man voices. In fact I think we'd miss a trick often because the lived experience of above is so particularly similar.

AndrewJRenko

larva wrote: »

Yes i do. Its called government policy to give a particular position to a certain minority if they applied for the job and it helps fill a certain quota to bring parity ie not all white males but a 60/40% "diversity" just to make things appear more equitable.

So just to be clear, the only Government policy for jobs is to give priority to female applicants for a very small number of high level roles when all other aspects are equal.

Board members aren't 'jobs', they are part-time roles with fairly nominal levels of payment involved.

There was a small number of senior academic posts advertised as female-only to address the historical imbalance in that sector.

Just in case you're trying to paint a picture of the poor white male being victimised again....