Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[PhantomWolf]

By that point I answered there was no trace of "government". I just added a datapoint and lawsuit. Maybe it'll get asserted there....

We'll see.

Declared goals and actual approach are two very different things. And That's our contention. By addressing alleged minuses approach is in no way different from previous discriminatorily practices. Just packaged differently. Benefitting different groups, harming another group. And promoting more discrimination.

If it all just prohibited discrimination, there wouldn't be much to complain. Go any further and things are just back in the old ways...

All AA and similar crap address are symptoms of underlying problems. And those problems have nothing to do with race or gender.

Here are some of the things that AA does....

- If you have changing and toilet facilities for one gender, then you must make a reasonable attempt to provide the same for the other gender.

- You must have rules in place against sexual harassment and policies for dealing with it when it occurs.

- You must have hiring policies in place such as disregarding gender of the applicant as a reason to reject them.

Please explain how these things are "...discriminatorily practices. Just packaged differently. Benefitting different groups, harming another group. And promoting more discrimination."

 

[PhantomWolf]

Talk about vagueness. Are you able to write more than dismissive posts? So far you've posted a lot of "you're wrong" but without going into the detail of why I'm wrong. How is this a false dichotomy. What are the other choices I'm forgetting?

You created a false dichotomy by offer only two choices when there are a myriad of them, starting with that your interpretation of the law might be wrong. There is nothing in the law that states a employer MUST hire minorities. It says that they must take reasonable steps to fairly accommodate minority employees and applicants, and that in doing so they should have a relative number that is consistent with their area, profession and the general workforce. This means that when they get those minorities that are suitable, they aren't allowed to reject them for being a minority. If they are best for the job, then they should get the job, and if the policies are right, then over time the workforce in the company will reflect a number that is consistent with their area, profession and the general workforce quite naturally.

There is no bean counter going around and saying, "You have four black people and eight women, the average in your industry is ten black people and nine women, so you're in violation of the law!"

At the most, the law can be used to bring suit where complaints are made and it can be shown that the company has either no got the required procedures to prevent discrimination against minorities, or that they have have it and simply don't follow it.

So in answer to your question. It does force businesses to hire minorities, but if someone complains, and they should be by their own policies, or they fail to have the policies and can't show why their hiring is reasonable, then suit can be brought against them, so it's not toothless either.

Isn't that exactly the same as forcing them to hire minorities they usually wouldn't hire?

Only in a twisted way of if they wouldn't usually hire them because they were discriminating against them. In a twisted form of logic you could say that being forced to hire the best person for the job regardless of gender of race is being forced to hire a minority when they happen to be the best person for the job.

 

[Belz...]

So in answer to your question. It does force businesses to hire minorities, but if someone complains, and they should be by their own policies, or they fail to have the policies and can't show why their hiring is reasonable, then suit can be brought against them, so it's not toothless either.

Well, that's exactly what I thought. I don't know why it was so hard to reach an agreement on this. It was largely semantics, anyway.

In a twisted form of logic you could say that being forced to hire the best person for the job regardless of gender of race is being forced to hire a minority when they happen to be the best person for the job.

That's where my earlier scenario comes in: If you have two candidates for a job, both of whom meet your requirements for the job, but one is a lot more experienced and qualified than the other, but that other is a minority and not hiring him means you have zero minority representation, would that be problematic, in your opinion, in the eyes of the state? It's a bit specific a hypothetical but I'm trying to make sure I understand the dynamic here.

 

[The Atheist]

If the population was 95% Maori and 5% white there there would be no grievances to resolve. The grievances came from the fact that after signing a treaty granting Maori all rights as British Subjects and declaring that they retain the ownership and control of their lands, food gathering, and treasures, the Crown turned around and violated those exact same rights by taking those things away from them.

Incorrect.

The grievances stem from the words in Maori having a different meaning to the English ones. Whether or not Maori of the day understood the intended meaning, revisionism since has created a convenient gap to be exploited.

The point remains that Skeptic Tank is correct in his statement that it is the minority status that is causing the problem, and you admit that.

How do you think we'd be faring if that fat, non-Maori-speaking pile of garbage, ex-truckie "King" Tuheitia and his ladder-climbing, revolting, slapper wife were running the joint? Mind you, if that were the case, it would actually be old Underpants Morgan in charge, since he clearly pulls kingitanga's strings.

At least they'd make Trump look sane, I suppose.

Just as an aside, I think Maori would be better served forgetting the damned treaty and dealing with what they have, which includes:

50% of prison population from just 15% of the general population.
Massive unemployment rates, especially youth.
Low life expectancy.
High child poverty.
Awful health outcomes.
Absurdly high single-parent families.

I won't even mention things like child abuse and murder rates, since the white man caused all of that anyway.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well, that's exactly what I thought. I don't know why it was so hard to reach an agreement on this. It was largely semantics, anyway.

*sigh* sorry it was meant to read... It doesn't force businesses to hire minorities....

That's where my earlier scenario comes in: If you have two candidates for a job, both of whom meet your requirements for the job, but one is a lot more experienced and qualified than the other, but that other is a minority and not hiring him means you have zero minority representation, would that be problematic, in your opinion, in the eyes of the state? It's a bit specific a hypothetical but I'm trying to make sure I understand the dynamic here.

If you can show that the candidate you hired was more qualified and experienced and thus better for the job and that in hiring them you followed your hiring policies, I doubt the State would do anything.

 

[Darat]

Sure. The answer to your question is: Yes. But I'm yet to understand the point.

It means you already have the right that you seem to think is an "extra" right for others.

I simply want one question answered at this point. I'm being told that forcing employers to have practices in place that ensure they hire women and minorities is not the same as forcing them to hire women in minorities but I don't see the difference. How about you help me out?

It seems to be one those things you just can't get your head around for some reason so I doubt me only repeating myself (and others) will help you but here goes.

Anti-discrimination legislation is intended to remove discrimination.

In terms of employment this means to make companies (amongst other things) have fair and equitable hiring processes. Companies that don't have such processes that they can demonstrate are liable to lose employment tribunals if someone believes they have been discriminated against illegally.

 

[Darat]

Yeah but you're skipping a step: you _do_ force employers to have those policies. What's the difference with saying you force them to hire minorities?

Because the two things are very different. For example in the UK say a company is based in a small town that population has very few of type X people. All the legislation does is say "when hiring you can't discriminate against type X people. But if no type X people apply or the company can show their employment processes do not discriminate against type X people then there is no reason for them to have a certain percentage/number of type X people.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Incorrect.

The grievances stem from the words in Maori having a different meaning to the English ones. Whether or not Maori of the day understood the intended meaning, revisionism since has created a convenient gap to be exploited.

It doesn't matter if you take the English version of the Maori version ( and Internationally it's agreed that when the languages of a treaty, such as the Waitangi Treaty, don't match, that the best interpretation is the one that fits into the context best, which may be a mid point between the two. Regardless, the Treaty conveyed on the Maori the rights to own and govern their land, resources, and treasures as long as they wanted to retain them, in both versions, regardless of the word chosen to represent that ownership.

The Crown didn't live up to it's end of the bargain.

The point remains that Skeptic Tank is correct in his statement that it is the minority status that is causing the problem, and you admit that.

Incorrect, it has to do with the Treaty not being followed. The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown, the Crown failed to hold up it's end of the agreement and blatantly broke the terms of the Treaty. Even is Maori weren't the minority in the country that would mean that the Crown was responsible to make amends for its actions in violating the Treaty. The grievances come from the violation of Maori's rights as given under the treaty, not because they are a minority.

How do you think we'd be faring if that fat, non-Maori-speaking pile of garbage, ex-truckie "King" Tuheitia and his ladder-climbing, revolting, slapper wife were running the joint? Mind you, if that were the case, it would actually be old Underpants Morgan in charge, since he clearly pulls kingitanga's strings.

This is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Just as an aside, I think Maori would be better served forgetting the damned treaty and dealing with what they have, which includes:

50% of prison population from just 15% of the general population.
Massive unemployment rates, especially youth.
Low life expectancy.
High child poverty.
Awful health outcomes.
Absurdly high single-parent families.

I won't even mention things like child abuse and murder rates, since the white man caused all of that anyway.

Shockingly all of the above have the same source. Poverty. Crime rates, murder rates, child abuse, low life expectancy, single parent families... These are the results of a people in poverty, and that can be shown worldwide. Maori are in poverty because their means of wealth was stripped from them and has been denied to them for a long time.

Yes there are issues with how the reparation has been dealt with and who benefits from it, but the issues were created by Governments stripping away Maori's assets and livelihoods and in the first place, and then pushing them into urbanisation, while only dealing with Iwi leadership meaning that large numbers of urban Maori remain in poverty because they have little connection to their Iwi and sources of reparation that were made to them.

Had Maori not be treated as they were, they would not be in the same places that they are today, and none of that has to do with being a minority, it has to do with the poor and blatantly discriminatory way that Maori have been treated from 1840 until even into the late 1980's.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah but you're skipping a step: you _do_ force employers to have those policies. What's the difference with saying you force them to hire minorities?

Let me use an analogy.

You own the White Bread Bed and Breakfast. Under the law when you started your B&B you were allowed to pick and chose your customers, and you decided that you only want single white males as guests.

Now the law has changed. It says that you need to accommodate all people regardless of race or gender, and to do this you need to create policies and make any reasonable changes to provide for everyone, and that it expects you aim for a clientele that is a reflection of the make up in diversity of those that visit your city.

Things you might have to do.

You might need to add a Bathroom for women, or make the existing Bathroom Unisex.

You'll need to create a new guest policy that is non-discriminatory. Now instead of letting your rooms to the first single white males that apply to stay, you'll need to let you room to the first person or people that apply for a room, regardless of their sex or gender.

You might find that you need to advertise these changes and that you're now accepting non-single white male guests.

Where does the government come in?

They turn up when someone complains that they were turned away.

Now if the No Vacancy sign was up, and you can show that the guests who held rooms did so because they turned up first, as is your policy, then that instead of having 10 single white men, 5 Single white women, a married couple, 3 single black men, and a single black woman as your guests, which is what the reflection of the make up in diversity of those that visit your city is, you actually have 15 single white men, 2 Black men, and 3 single women, one of whom is black, because you followed your polices and your policies are non-discriminatory you're in the clear.

If however, the Government can show that in fact you had the Vacancy sign on, and rooms to spare, but weren't following your polices but rather rejecting most of the minority guests in favour of your preferred single white male guest, then you'll be in trouble.

Now finally, yes this all means that some single white males who previously would have gotten to be guests are now going to miss out on getting rooms because they didn't get there in time, even though they would have done so under the old rules. However, these are the single white males were were benefiting from the previous discriminatory system, and it is not a form of discrimination for them to lose that privilege.

 

[The Atheist]

It doesn't matter if you take the English version of the Maori version ( and Internationally it's agreed that when the languages of a treaty, such as the Waitangi Treaty, don't match, that the best interpretation is the one that fits into the context best, which may be a mid point between the two.

Exactly the opposite of what we do.

Regardless, the Treaty conveyed on the Maori the rights to own and govern their land, resources, and treasures as long as they wanted to retain them, in both versions, regardless of the word chosen to represent that ownership.

The mere fact that you note that single word displays for me that you know you're wrong.

Do you seriously think the world's sole superpower of the time intended to give away rights that had never been given away before?

The grievances come from the violation of Maori's rights as given under the treaty, not because they are a minority.

Complete nonsense, as neatly evinced by the abuse of the power they have been given. The maunga tihi move in Auckland that I noted a couple of days back is perfect evidence that if Maori were a majority, they'd enact the treaty however they saw fit.

If you think a majority population of Maori would allow themselves to be dictated to by a white minority, you're in gaga land.

This is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

No it is not.

It is what Maori would be facing if whitey decided to up and leave. Tuheitia isn't the sole claimant to any kind of national Maori leader, but he's easily the most visible.

Tuheitia or some equally inept person would be in charge.

Probably Hone Harawira - good luck with that!

Shockingly all of the above have the same source. Poverty. Crime rates, murder rates, child abuse, low life expectancy, single parent families... These are the results of a people in poverty, and that can be shown worldwide. Maori are in poverty because their means of wealth was stripped from them and has been denied to them for a long time.

Kee-rist, that is so wrong it verges on laughable.

Means of wealth stripped from them?

Have you ever seen the fishing quotas? Are you aware of the massive holding of Te Arawa, Tainui and every other iwi? Are you aware of the hundreds of millions iwi have pissed away by investing in idiotic assets like the Warriors?

The kids might be in poverty, but I have to agree with John Key on the question that if you subtract the spending on booze, smokes, dope & pokies, the families wouldn't be in poverty.

Had Maori not be treated as they were, they would not be in the same places that they are today, and none of that has to do with being a minority, it has to do with the poor and blatantly discriminatory way that Maori have been treated from 1840 until even into the late 1980's.

That is nonsense from start to finish. Maori were not discriminated against during most of the 20th century. In the 1960s and '70s they were all employed, and none of them were in poverty.

The change has been brought about entirely by themselves and poor choices.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Exactly the opposite of what we do.

Actually we take the English version, so not the opposite, but close.

The mere fact that you note that single word displays for me that you know you're wrong.

That word and whether it means governorship or sovereignty is quite important, but in the end both of them mean that Maori had the right to their lands and property, things the Crown then turn around and stole from them.

Do you seriously think the world's sole superpower of the time intended to give away rights that had never been given away before?

England didn't have private property rights?

Complete nonsense, as neatly evinced by the abuse of the power they have been given. The maunga tihi move in Auckland that I noted a couple of days back is perfect evidence that if Maori were a majority, they'd enact the treaty however they saw fit.

Yeah cause you know, funny thing. The treaty gave Maori the right to make decisions about the lands they owned, lands that got taken from them. Now they have been given some control back over it and it's sooo upsetting to people like you that seem to think that they should just shut up. If Maori had remained the Majority we'd have become a far more bi-cultural society and things like not walking (or driving) on the head of a mountain would be ingrained in our society as a whole, but since their culture was stripped and their wishes ignored, now that they are getting that back it's a shock to certain people.

If you think a majority population of Maori would allow themselves to be dictated to by a white minority, you're in gaga land.

Where did I say that they would? In fact I believe I implied that were they the majority there would be no grievances because the history would be different and the Crown would not have violated the treaty.

No it is not.

It is what Maori would be facing if whitey decided to up and leave. Tuheitia isn't the sole claimant to any kind of national Maori leader, but he's easily the most visible.

Tuheitia or some equally inept person would be in charge.

Probably Hone Harawira - good luck with that!

You are judging what Maori would have been like without the abuses of the Crown by basing them on what has occurred with those abuses. You can't do that. If the Crown had honoured the Treaty then Maoridom and New Zealand would be quite different places to what they are today, and Maori Leadership would be totally different too.

Kee-rist, that is so wrong it verges on laughable.

Means of wealth stripped from them?

Have you ever seen the fishing quotas? Are you aware of the massive holding of Te Arawa, Tainui and every other iwi? Are you aware of the hundreds of millions iwi have pissed away by investing in idiotic assets like the Warriors?

Seriously, you judge what they had in 1890 by what they have today? Why do you think they have those quotas today? Could it be that they lost them for near on 100 years? You seem to want to judge Maoridom on what they have had returned to them (the Iwis anyway) since 1980 rather than taking a look at what was taken away from them between 1850-1980 as if those first 130 years simply didn't happen.

The kids might be in poverty, but I have to agree with John Key on the question that if you subtract the spending on booze, smokes, dope & pokies, the families wouldn't be in poverty.

Total baloney and many studies into the matter have repeatedly concluded your claims as such.

That is nonsense from start to finish. Maori were not discriminated against during most of the 20th century. In the 1960s and '70s they were all employed, and none of them were in poverty.

The change has been brought about entirely by themselves and poor choices.

Seriously, you have a rose tinted view of the past. Perhaps you need to go and actually do some learning about how New Zealand was in the 1870-1890's with most businesses and land owned by Maori, then what happened after the Land Wars and the tribes that had their lands, businesses, and properties stripped from them. Maori in the 1960-70's were in simple unskilled manual jobs, often in generational work, like working in the freezing works or Government Departments like the Ministry of Works. When the vast majority of those jobs vanished in 1980's Maori poverty soared. Had they not lost their businesses and lands when they did, they would have been employed in those rather than remaining reliant on unskilled labour jobs. Also they weren't in as much poverty in the 60's and 70's because we had full employment, better social safety nets, and large Government Departments like the Ministry of Works that could employ them. Again all of these things were tossed out in the 1980's and Maori paid the price for it.

And yes, they were discriminated against. They weren't expected to do well at school, didn't have opportunities to get to university, weren't hired in technical or skilled occupations. On top of that their culture and language was almost excised from the country, being banned in schools for decades after 1890 when it was outlawed. It wasn't until the 1970's that there was a revival in Maori Culture and Te Reo.

Nice for you to revise history by white washing it though, sadly it's not really true.

 

[The Atheist]

Actually we take the English version, so not the opposite, but close.

Nice change of position, but at least you agree now how important that one little word is.

That word and whether it means governorship or sovereignty is quite important,...

No, it's ALL important.

If Maori had remained the Majority we'd have become a far more bi-cultural society ...

That's too funny for mere words, sorry.

Yeah, Maori are so welcoming and inclusive.

Hone Harawira is quite open in his desire for his kids not to date any white kids.

Number one in anti-Asian racism?

Maori.

...and things like not walking (or driving) on the head of a mountain would be ingrained in our society as a whole, but since their culture was stripped and their wishes ignored, now that they are getting that back it's a shock to certain people.

Culture stripped?

You've now hit fantasyland, or maybe you've never seen a haka performed.

Every Auckland City Council starts with a karakia. Did you vote for that? I sure as hell didn't.

In the case of maunga tihi, John Logan Campbell bought OTH for a fair price, then on his death, gave it to all Aucklanders.

Yet an unelected group of a significant minority has just stopped disabled and elderly people going there.

It was no shock at all, but it pisses me off. No worry, I'll just drive a 4WD up to the summit. Fine me.

Total baloney and many studies into the matter have repeatedly concluded your claims as such.

Please show that evidence for this outrageous claim.

Seriously, you have a rose tinted view of the past.

Nope, honest.

New Zealand's unemployment number in the 1960s and '70s speaks for itself - there were fewer than 5000 unemployed between 1960 and 1976. Do note during 1960 - 66 the number was never even in four figures.

...Again all of these things were tossed out in the 1980's and Maori paid the price for it.

More utter nonsense, and completely refuted by the example of Pasifika people, who were both further down the ladder and had far fewer assets. yet don't feature in negative statistics to anything like the extent Maori do.

And yes, they were discriminated against.

Show some evidence of that absurd claim. Show me the Jim Crow laws, the discrimination from the '60s and '70s.

They weren't expected to do well at school,...

Rubbish. School accelerated classes showed similar percentages to the general population.

... didn't have opportunities to get to university, ...

Not only wrong, egregiously wrong. Maori-only scholarships were available everywhere. Te Arawa alone provided multiple scholarships.

On top of that their culture and language was almost excised from the country, being banned in schools for decades after 1890 when it was outlawed.

Pure myth, and I've had this argument many times. Maori was never legislated against, it was never against the law to speak it, and while some schools discouraged it, they also discouraged people from speaking Dutch, German, Italian and French, on the perfectly reasonable basis that it's bloody rude to speak in a language other people don't understand.

There is no evidence at all that there was any kind of concerted program to stop Maori speech.

I lived in a forest village in the late '60s and many Maori employees spoke no English. How on earth did they manage that in such an allegedly unfriendly society?

It wasn't until the 1970's that there was a revival in Maori Culture and Te Reo.

More palpable nonsense. I was at school in the '60s and we learnt Maori songs, phrases, games and poi actions.

Nice for you to revise history by white washing it though, sadly it's not really true.

No, it's 100% true.

You'd get on well in the Republican Party in USA, they also have the opinion that facts are flexible. I tend to think the opposite and am willing to back myself up with evidence.

Over to you.

 

[Belz...]

Deleted.

 

[Belz...]

It means you already have the right that you seem to think is an "extra" right for others.

I don't think it's an extra right. I was saying that some people (right-wingers) will think so. That's the point of the OP, isn't it?

Because the two things are very different. For example in the UK say a company is based in a small town that population has very few of type X people. All the legislation does is say "when hiring you can't discriminate against type X people. But if no type X people apply or the company can show their employment processes do not discriminate against type X people then there is no reason for them to have a certain percentage/number of type X people.

Right. For me, so long as the "quota" is based on proportion of applicants, and not the general population, then it's at least a reasonable target.

 

[Belz...]

Let me use an analogy.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that.

I'll be integrating this into my knowledge base now.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Nice change of position, but at least you agree now how important that one little word is.

I haven't changed position at all. I first noted what should be done, then then what the NZ Government does.The fact that these things do not match doesn't mean I have modified my position any.

No, it's ALL important.

No, it's not. Regardless if you use "guaranteed exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties"
from the English or "the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures" the basic meaning is the same, that their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties were theirs and only theirs until such time as they decided to sell them. The Crown taking those things from them was in violation of both texts.

That's too funny for mere words, sorry.

Yeah, Maori are so welcoming and inclusive.

Hone Harawira is quite open in his desire for his kids not to date any white kids.

Number one in anti-Asian racism?

Maori.

Once more you compare today's Maori to Maori as they were in the late 1800's as if they are exactly the same and there might not have been reasons for them to become jaded and disillusioned in the 100+ years between these times.

Culture stripped?

You've now hit fantasyland, or maybe you've never seen a haka performed.

And as we know, Maori culture is just one Haka, right?

Every Auckland City Council starts with a karakia. Did you vote for that? I sure as hell didn't.

Again you seem to believe that just because something is done today, that means that past injustices never happened.

In the case of maunga tihi, John Logan Campbell bought OTH for a fair price, then on his death, gave it to all Aucklanders.

You do realise that Tūpuna Maunga returned to Mana Whenua as part of Treaty of Waitangi settlement in 2014? Right? Whether you like it or not, your representatives have made the choice to give them back in a settlement and they are now owned by the 13 Mana Whenua iwi and hapū of Auckland.

Yet an unelected group of a significant minority has just stopped disabled and elderly people going there.

That group of unelected people represented the owners of Tūpuna Maunga, and as such they can do what they like with their property. Also you are wrong, Elderly and Disabled people can still be driven up the mountains, they just need to let the gate controllers know they wish access and they'll be let though.

I suggest you read the following.

Significance of Tupuna Maunga

Management of Tūpuna Maunga

It was no shock at all, but it pisses me off. No worry, I'll just drive a 4WD up to the summit. Fine me.

I'm sure you'd be just as happy if people decided to 4WD all over your lawn too right?

Please show that evidence for this outrageous claim.

some links to get you started

The only outrageous statement is you repeating the myth that people in poverty spend all their money on alcohol, smokes and gambling

Nope, honest.

New Zealand's unemployment number in the 1960s and '70s speaks for itself - there were fewer than 5000 unemployed between 1960 and 1976. Do note during 1960 - 66 the number was never even in four figures.

Yes as I noted in my post and you cut out, one of the reasons Maori weren't in abject poverty in the 60's and 70's was that we had near full employment, but the fact is that Maori were rural and unskilled, land-less and mostly employed in non-skilled, labour intensive work, especially in the rural sectors. A lot of those jobs would vanish in the late 70's and then was devastated in the 1980's under the Roger Douglas shake up which lead to a lot of the places that employed Maori in numbers, such as freezing works, closing down. It also lead to young Maori heading into the Urban areas for jobs, which also dried up leaving then unemployed and without links to family or skills to improve their lives.

More utter nonsense, and completely refuted by the example of Pasifika people, who were both further down the ladder and had far fewer assets. yet don't feature in negative statistics to anything like the extent Maori do.

Seriously? When were Pasifika people stripped of their assets and lands? On top of that, those that immigrate to New Zealand the best of the crop, and yet the rates of poverty in Pasifika people is comparable with Maori, so much in fact that most programs and studies consider them both when dealing with poverty.

Show some evidence of that absurd claim. Show me the Jim Crow laws, the discrimination from the '60s and '70s.

Because we all know that unless it apatite it's not discrimination.

Do you think that saying that a certain people can vote, but then setting the law that only land owners can vote knowing that those people aren't land owners might be a little discriminatory?

I'll deal with the rest later, it's late.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Thank you for taking the time to explain that.

I'll be integrating this into my knowledge base now.

Just to be clear. When you talk about 'forcing companies to hire minorities' you don't mean 'not allowing them to discriminate against minorities' do you? Some people might see things those as the same thing but I hope you can see the difference.

If you can see that difference then the distinction between having processes which don't discriminate against minorities, encouraging minority hiring and 'forcing people to hire minorities' should be fairly clear?

 

[Darat]

Ah. Then I guess we're at an impasse. I can't see how forcing you to have a policy to hire minorities isn't effectively the same thing as forcing you to hire minorities. It's a distinction without a difference.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

Consider this:

• Company A employs 100 people but no TypeX people only TypeY people even though the applicants for the job are a ratio of 50:50.
  
• Anti-discrimination legislation is passed.
  
• Company A's HR department look into their hiring practices and sees that for whatever reason all CVs from TypeX people (with the same qualifications and experience as TypeY applicants) are rejected.
  
• Company A changes their recruitment processes to use a points system to assess applicants education, experience and qualifications so that no one is now being discriminated against or for on grounds of being a TypeX or TypeY person.
  
• TypeX people are now interviewed.
  
• In five years time there are now 20 TypeX people in Company A.
  
• A TypeX applicant believes they were during the application process illegally discriminated against.
  
• It goes to an employment tribunal.
  
• The TypeX applicant claims that there only being 20% of TypeX people in the company means that TypeX people are being discriminated against.
  
• Company A's representatives shows the processes they have in place to ensure illegal discrimination is not happening.
  
• The tribunal decides the processes Company A uses are fair, responsible and appropriate.
  
• The TypeX person loses the tribunal.

No quotas, no set percentages, no numbers at all. It is all about whether any particular process/procedure/policy a company has illegally discriminate against anyone.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Right. For me, so long as the "quota" is based on proportion of applicants, and not the general population, then it's at least a reasonable target.

There are no quotas, with scare speech marks or not! It is not about "quotas" it is about whether a company discriminates illegally against anyone.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/04/blacks-and-whites-with-equal-educational-attainment-differ-in-cognitive-ability/

Blacks and whites with equal educational attainment differ in cognitive ability. This is relevant to this thread and to why there is discrimination in hiring,

"Black and White Americans with the same formal level of education differ significantly in their cognitive abilities. Specifically, within any given level of formal education Whites consistently outperform Blacks. Moreover, this effect is so strong that Blacks often underperform Whites who have lower levels of formal education than they do.

...

Socially, this finding is important because it implies that we cannot assume that Blacks and Whites with similar educational credentials will have equal cognitive abilities. Though most people are unfamiliar with the relevant data, many may have an intuitive grasp of this fact – an implicit skepticism of the Black woman with a Masters degree.

If so, this invalidates studies which attempt to measure discrimination against Blacks by showing that Whites are favored over Blacks for jobs even when they have equivalent or even lesser credentials. As we have seen, in education, Whites with lesser credentials normally have greater cognitive ability and functional literacy than Blacks with greater credentials, and so there is a rational, non-hateful, reason to prefer White applicants over Blacks even after matching their credentials."