Racism is alive and well in Britain

[TraneWreck]

Exactly. The whole problem with this "reverse racism" business (there's nothing reverse about it, it's just racism plain and simple) is that many people seem to look at it exactly backwards. As far as I can tell, the thinking goes something like this:

1) Everyone should be treated equally.
2) If everyone were treated equally, the proportion of races in all jobs would be exactly equal to the proportions in the general population.
3) Therefore, if we force jobs to have equal proportions, it must mean everyone is being treated equally.
4) ???
5) Collect underpants.

Where it falls down is 2), because that is simply not true. Whatever the reasons, and however unfair those reasons may have been, different groups do tend to have different cultures, different preferences, different goals, and so on. We can't go back and "correct" history, and you can't "correct" peoples thoughts, so that is just how things are. If that means that you get less black people working in physics labs, but more musicians, then so be it. You can't force a whole group of people to want something just because you think they should want the same things as everyone else. Whether it's ultimately because of some great injustice done to their ancestors, or just that priorities happened to be different where their grandparents came from, it's not fair to them or to everyone else to try and force them to conform to what you think they should want.

This is a rather perverse view of things. Try this:

1) People should be treated equally and not discriminated against based on race.
2) People aren't treated equally and are discriminated against based on race.
3) Measures have to be taken to correct this historical fact.
4) Requiring that employers bring populations into their work force that are being systematically excluded for factors beyond their control is one method of correction.

Not that complicated, really.

 

[Alt+F4]

Why? How would that prove your claim?

I'm saying you did not apply for this job as you stated. You are claiming you did.

I have given you my reasons for doubting you, Lionking has concurred. I see I'm not the only one calling you on this.

It really doesn't bother me if you believe it or not.

It is implicit in the advert that people of Black or Ethnic Minority will be given preference over whites, therefore it could be argued that white people applying are going to find themselves discriminated against, quite legally, under Section 37 of the Race Relations Act.

This doesn't mean that white people can't apply, which was what was said in the OP link. Two questions they did ask, which I found objectionable, were about my religion and sexual preference.

 

[Primus]

Ok, I'll make it nice and simple for you. The article in the OP said that white people were not allowed to apply for the positions. That's a lie.

Great. You have successfully proved the council does not have an automated race filtering system for new applications. Well done.

Now for the 3rd time why did they state "open to black and ethnic minority candidates" as well as the council spokesman stating and defending why this job was not for white people if this was not the case.

Are you saying that as long as you can apply for a job you can't have then it doesn't matter?
Would this be an acceptable defence if an employer regularly turned down highly qualified black people. "Well I gave them an interview"

 

[Primus]

Hey don't blame me that you're too lazy to apply for the position yourself.

Your right. It's clearly my fault you posted an embellished/invented account of applying for a job to back your point up. How lazy of me

If I was you, given it's not just me who has caught you out, I would drop the whole story about getting an interview and maybe give your opinion on whether you think it is a good idea or not.

 

[Primus]

I always thought the sending out ghost CV's with identical qualifications. 50% having European names and the other 50% being African/Middle Eastern ect and then informing the company if they showed any quantifiable bias was a very good idea. I always thought it would be the more subconcious rather than overt racism which is the bigger problem.

 

[Alt+F4]

Great. You have successfully proved the council does not have an automated race filtering system for new applications. Well done.

Now for the 3rd time why did they state "open to black and ethnic minority candidates" as well as the council spokesman stating and defending why this job was not for white people if this was not the case.

Are you saying that as long as you can apply for a job you can't have then it doesn't matter?
Would this be an acceptable defence if an employer regularly turned down highly qualified black people. "Well I gave them an interview"

Here's the three lies from the OP linked article:

A council has been accused of discrimination after white people were barred from applying for two £18,000-a-year jobs.

White people are not barred from applying.

As a result the council will only accept applications from ethnic minorities for the two-year placements.

ANYONE can apply. I made up everything on the application.

The two jobs are described on BCC's website as 'open to black and minority ethnic graduates' only

You have seen the ad in question. It doesn't say "only".

 

[bpesta22]

An employment relationship exists when you agree to do stuff under the direction / control of the employer, and they agree to pay you. This is a job (not an unpaid internship).

 

[Primus]

Here's the three lies from the OP linked article:



White people are not barred from applying.



ANYONE can apply. I made up everything on the application.



You have seen the ad in question. It doesn't say "only".

Your dodging of the question is getting tedious. Are you saying this job description does not specify the preferred race of their applicant. If you are then I think we are at an impasse and it't probably best to leave it there.

If you do think it is stating a preferred race of their applicants then what is your opinion on this? Do you think it is the best way to improve recruitment practices?

We can argue semantics all day but frankly I would rather chew my own arm off.

 

[Alt+F4]

Are you saying this job description does not specify the preferred race of their applicant.

Yes. The word preferred is not used in the job description.

If you do think it is stating a preferred race of their applicants then what is your opinion on this? Do you think it is the best way to improve recruitment practices?

Might The Bristol City Council be discriminating against white people and only plan to hire non-whites? Could be but there has been no evidence presented so far. As for my opinion, no, I don't think affirmative action is the way to end race discrimination in employment.

 

[AvalonXQ]

An employment relationship exists when you agree to do stuff under the direction / control of the employer, and they agree to pay you. This is a job (not an unpaid internship).

It's a paid internship. A paid training program may technically be something you can reasonably call a job, but it's not the same as an actual employment position, i.e., "a real job". It's a temporary position where you're shuffled from one office in the Bristol local government to another, learning management skills, for two years -- at which point in time your training is over and you have to compete with everyone else for an actual employment position.
A paid internship isn't the same as a real job, and discriminating on the former isn't the same as discriminating on the latter. I consider the former to be more analogous to a minority-only scholarship than to racism in hiring.
It may still be wrong for them to discriminate here, but I think we should distinguish between racist training programs and racist hiring practices; the former really do seem to be very well-tailored to what "affirmative action" is supposed to do.

 

[bpesta22]

It's a paid internship. A paid training program may technically be something you can reasonably call a job, but it's not the same as an actual employment position, i.e., "a real job". It's a temporary position where you're shuffled from one office in the Bristol local government to another, learning management skills, for two years -- at which point in time your training is over and you have to compete with everyone else for an actual employment position.
A paid internship isn't the same as a real job, and discriminating on the former isn't the same as discriminating on the latter. I consider the former to be more analogous to a minority-only scholarship than to racism in hiring.
It may still be wrong for them to discriminate here, but I think we should distinguish between racist training programs and racist hiring practices; the former really do seem to be very well-tailored to what "affirmative action" is supposed to do.

Maybe it differs in England versus the US, but the US is currently cracking down on unpaid internships.

If you do anything substantially for the employer's benefit (versus your education) you're working a job. That it's compensated suggests it's a job, at least in my opinion.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a paid internship.

Which is a job.

A paid training program may technically be something you can reasonably call a job

Umm... it's unreasonable to NOT call it a job.

but it's not the same as an actual employment position, i.e., "a real job".

I don't know what you mean by a "real job", but this is an actual employment position. You are being paid for your time, for an extended period of time. That the position will expire in two years doesn't make it any less real.

It's a temporary position

Jobs don't have to be permanent to be jobs.

where you're shuffled from one office in the Bristol local government to another, learning management skills

And that makes it not a job... how?

A paid internship isn't the same as a real job,

I don't know what this "real job" term you keep using means, but you're really getting paid for your time, and you do what they tell you to do during that time. That makes it a job.

and discriminating on the former isn't the same as discriminating on the latter.

Why not? What's the difference? You've tried (and failed) to make a distinction between the jobs themselves, but even accepting that there is some difference between them, why is discrimination in one case acceptable but not in the other?

I consider the former to be more analogous to a minority-only scholarship than to racism in hiring.

Does the government give out minority-only scholarships? If so, isn't that just racism in scholarship awards? And with scholarships, isn't participation in the educational program separate from funding used to pay for it? If you wanted this to be analogous to scholarships, then wouldn't access to this training program need to be available to people who weren't getting paid?

It may still be wrong for them to discriminate here, but I think we should distinguish between racist training programs and racist hiring practices; the former really do seem to be very well-tailored to what "affirmative action" is supposed to do.

So it's racism which is more effective at achieving a desired goal. Which makes it all OK?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Which is a job.

It's a paid internship.
The primary goal of a "real job" is for the employer to get value out of you. The primary goal of training, paid or unpaid, is for you to gain the skills necessary to do the job. An internship is also often an evaluation of your suitability for the job.
I'm aware that both are technically "employment", but the two are not the same. The criteria for hiring for a "real job" is usually existing skill in an area; the criteria for an internship is usually evaluation of intelligence and trainability.
Bristol is discriminating in their training programs, not their hiring practices.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So it's racism which is more effective at achieving a desired goal. Which makes it all OK?

Affirmative action is racial discrimination to acheive the goal of allowing disadvantaged minority individuals to have the opportunity to succeed. Whether or not it's "all OK" is a different ballgame, but it's not equivalent. Giving disadvantaged minorities a leg up in training but no advantage in hiring is, in my opinion, less problematic than direct discrimination in hiring.

 

[bpesta22]

It's a paid internship.
The primary goal of a "real job" is for the employer to get value out of you. The primary goal of training, paid or unpaid, is for you to gain the skills necessary to do the job. An internship is also often an evaluation of your suitability for the job.
I'm aware that both are technically "employment", but the two are not the same. The criteria for hiring for a "real job" is usually existing skill in an area; the criteria for an internship is usually evaluation of intelligence and trainability.
Bristol is discriminating in their training programs, not their hiring practices.

This is really not true. If you do anything for the employer's benefit, you're working / they need to pay you.

Many counter examples to your point exist (training wages; probationary periods). The rule in the USA is if you suffer or permit someone to work, you gotta pay them at least the minimum wage (even if the work is part of training, as long as what's done benefits the employer).

In the USA, the civil rights act applies to all types of employment scenarios, unions, apprenticeship and training programs. So, whether it's a job or not is moot, but it is indeed a job.

Two year's security is more than any one at will.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a paid internship.

Yes, which is a kind of job.

The primary goal of a "real job" is for the employer to get value out of you.

Typically, but that distinction is irrelevant here. The problem with racism in hiring is not that companies doing the hiring don't get value out of a sufficiently diverse group of employees, the problem is that the employees who are discriminated against don't get the benefit. How is the benefit in this case any less than the benefit from your so-called "real job"? It's not.

This is a job. "Real job" vs. job is a distinction that has no relevance here.

I'm aware that both are technically "employment"

"Technically"? Try actually.

but the two are not the same.

Yet what you have used to distinguish them is irrelevant.

The criteria for hiring for a "real job" is usually existing skill in an area

Sometimes.

the criteria for an internship is usually evaluation of intelligence and trainability.

And sometimes that's the same criteria used for hiring for "real jobs", because the skill set is sufficiently specialized that almost any hire must be trained. So what?

Bristol is discriminating in their training programs, not their hiring practices.

But you already conceded that it's employment (even though you won't call it a job), which means that they ARE hiring these "trainees". When you are paying them for their time, you have hired them. And it's a job.

 

[Ziggurat]

Affirmative action is racial discrimination

You can put a period right there.

Giving disadvantaged minorities a leg up in training but no advantage in hiring is, in my opinion, less problematic than direct discrimination in hiring.

Except that this is hiring. A two-year position for which you are paid is a job.

 

[Dragonrock]

The what are you complaining about Affirmative Action for? It had exactly zero affect on your life.



I thoroughly enjoy when people express the notion that racism is a frivolous complaint in the midst of a racist statement.



Whose fault is it that people wrongly generalize about all African Americans based on one stereo-typed subset of their population? I would say the people doing the generalization.

I attempted to get too cutesy and also failed to finish my thoughts due to posting first thing in the morning. Let me try this again.

My home town had, and probably still has, only about 20% white population. The vast majority, probably 75%, are hispanic. Most elected offices were filled by hispanics and most businesses were owned by hispanics. But, in spite of this, complaints of racism were so common as to become expected. Should an elected office be contested by one hispanic and one non-hispanic then the hispanic usually made compaints of racism about the non-hispanic's campaign. Should a non-hispanic teacher give a hispanic a bad grade then it wouldn't surprise anyone when complaints were lodged. These continuous, and normally unfounded, accusations of racism were both expected and ignored as just part of the background noise of the town.

On the other hand, so called "reverse-racism" was common and open because, as the practitioners claimed, they're just paying white people back for how they treat the hispanics. My mother would have to take me or one of my brothers to the hardware store because they wouldn't wait on a white woman. White men or even boys were okay though. My father taught highschool ROTC and had to justify why only 50% of the students he selected were hispanic when the school population was much higher. Administration never seemed to get that every year the reason was because more than half of the applicants were white. I learned what I called "self defense spanish" which meant I knew enough to know when I was being talked about right in front of my face. I've been on the receiving end of racism and I can say I don't like it.

My point with all of this is, Affirmative Action places people in these groups. It looks on them, not as individuals, but only as a member of a certain subset of the population. You cannot make things equal by discriminating against someone who, most probably, was not involved in any of the discrimination that led to the laws. The major obstacle preventing most people from joining the life that was built on the backs of slaves, but is not maintained by them, is the fact that they won't try. Be these people from the Rio Grande Valley, the mountains of West Virginia, the swamps of Mississippi, or southeast Washington DC the biggest thing holding them back is their local culture which demonizes them for even trying.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Bristol employs 9,000+ people in real jobs. They also have paid training positions, two of which are racially discriminatory (allegedly). Failing to distinguish between their 9,000+ permanent employment positions and their half dozen training positions in accusing them of "racist hiring" is disingenuous and does them a disservice.

 

[bpesta22]

Bristol employs 9,000+ people in real jobs. They also have paid training positions, two of which are racially discriminatory (allegedly). Failing to distinguish between their 9,000+ permanent employment positions and their half dozen training positions in accusing them of "racist hiring" is disingenuous and does them a disservice.

I'm for AA, but let's use the old lawyer trick and ask what number makes it racist?

1000? No, how about 2000? 4500?