Britain's top universities warned staff and students that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/s ... r-BB1iOltl
Aggression against who?
Thanks to niord,gvonge,Shelford,GrahamPlatt,gpadsa, for Donating to support the site
Britain's top universities warned staff and students that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.
Nemo wrote:...give jobs to the most unqualified presumably:Britain's top universities warned staff and students that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.
Nemo wrote:...give jobs to the most unqualified presumably:Britain's top universities warned staff and students that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/s ... r-BB1iOltl
Aggression against who?
Niksen wrote:Nemo wrote:...give jobs to the most unqualified presumably:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/s ... r-BB1iOltl
Aggression against who?
It is aggression against the person that got the job, exactly as the article says -
“The university suggested that the statement meant that some people only got their job to tick a box or fill a quota”
i.e the job was given to the best person, but some will insinuate and gossip that it wasn’t.
Lootman wrote:Niksen wrote:It is aggression against the person that got the job, exactly as the article says -
“The university suggested that the statement meant that some people only got their job to tick a box or fill a quota”
i.e the job was given to the best person, but some will insinuate and gossip that it wasn’t.
No, surely the main criticism of affirmative action programmes is that the best person cannot be given the job because they have the misfortune of being in a demographic considered to be "privileged".
Lootman wrote:But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".
Niksen wrote:Lootman wrote:No, surely the main criticism of affirmative action programmes is that the best person cannot be given the job because they have the misfortune of being in a demographic considered to be "privileged".
The university report had nothing to do with affirmative action programmes, and the fact you raise that topic indicates you fell smack bang into the trap the Daily Mail set in its twisting of the report to get its readers clicking.
Niksen wrote:Lootman wrote:But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".
And that was exactly the point of the university report, but of course that story doesn’t generate clicks from the Daily Mail readership, hence the twisting of it into something that does.
Lootman wrote:Niksen wrote:The university report had nothing to do with affirmative action programmes, and the fact you raise that topic indicates you fell smack bang into the trap the Daily Mail set in its twisting of the report to get its readers clicking.
The term "affirmative action programme" applies to any policy that consciously uses race as a criterion. So it does not matter whether such a policy formally calls itself that or not. If you deviate from merit to consider other factors then you are introducing distortions into the selection process, and you run the risk that more qualified applicants will be discounted due to an accident of birth.
Niksen wrote:Lootman wrote:The term "affirmative action programme" applies to any policy that consciously uses race as a criterion. So it does not matter whether such a policy formally calls itself that or not. If you deviate from merit to consider other factors then you are introducing distortions into the selection process, and you run the risk that more qualified applicants will be discounted due to an accident of birth.
the guidance from the university had nothing at all to do with any sort of racial hiring policy, it was to trying to address the exact opposite.
The report was highlighting the accusations of people only getting a job because they were a diversity hire even when no such policy existed.
Lootman wrote:Niksen wrote:the guidance from the university had nothing at all to do with any sort of racial hiring policy, it was to trying to address the exact opposite.
The report was highlighting the accusations of people only getting a job because they were a diversity hire even when no such policy existed.
Again, if a perception exists that merit is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness then that college can expect adverse scrutiny. So it is still a problem for colleges EITHER because those colleges are considering non-merit factors OR because they are not but have failed to make a clear statement to that effect.
My recommendation to each college so accused is to make this very public pronouncement: "Scumbag College hereby asserts that selection by race is a racist endeavour. This college has never employed such bias and never will". Problem solved.
Lootman wrote:I have actually seen institutions use phrasing like "applicants from minority backgrounds are particularly encouraged to apply", which is indicative of bias. Just don't do it - be seen to have clean hands.
Niksen wrote:Lootman wrote:Again, if a perception exists that merit is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness then that college can expect adverse scrutiny. So it is still a problem for colleges EITHER because those colleges are considering non-merit factors OR because they are not but have failed to make a clear statement to that effect.
My recommendation to each college so accused is to make this very public pronouncement: "Scumbag College hereby asserts that selection by race is a racist endeavour. This college has never employed such bias and never will". Problem solved.
It is really funny how your persistence in turning this back to an issue of your perception of discriminatory hiring is exactly the issue of aggression this report is about when a diverse candidate is hired despite the fact that they were the best candidate.
scrumpyjack wrote:This is bonkers!
You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?
Lootman wrote:This alleged "aggression" is a myth as far as I can see
Lootman wrote:But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".
scrumpyjack wrote:This is bonkers!
You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?
Niksen wrote:Lootman wrote:This alleged "aggression" is a myth as far as I can see
And yet you previously said this.Lootman wrote:But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".
Niksen wrote:The issue is that in your example the surgeon is the best person for the job, but the snide comments from those who were less able and didn't get the job is that the successful applicant only got the job because of their race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc.
Lootman wrote:But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".
Lootman wrote:That is not aggression. It is merely the expression of free speech.
Lootman wrote:Niksen wrote:The issue is that in your example the surgeon is the best person for the job, but the snide comments from those who were less able and didn't get the job is that the successful applicant only got the job because of their race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc.
Except that you have no way of knowing that he/she is "the best person for the job". It just suits your bias to assume that without evidence.
Niksen wrote:Lootman wrote:But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".
That is not aggression. It is merely the expression of free speech.
You don't think someone saying without any evidence at all that someone didn't deserve the job and the employer broke the law by hiring them isn't aggressive?
scrumpyjack wrote:This is bonkers!
You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?
Lootman wrote:Niksen wrote:You don't think someone saying without any evidence at all that someone didn't deserve the job and the employer broke the law by hiring them isn't aggressive?
No, such clams are not that an employer or college broke any law but rather that the law allows for such "positive" discrimination and that moreover the institution did so, meaning that their selection criteria included factors other than merit.
Lootman wrote:So are you saying that it is "aggressive" to point out hiring mistakes?
Hallucigenia wrote:scrumpyjack wrote:This is bonkers!
You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?
Well that's the whole point of the original guideline, is to encourage people not to think in terms of "best person for the job" versus "diversity hire" - not least because in the UK affirmative action is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. By talking about affirmative action you're taking a US perspective which is not relevant here. How about that black surgeon *is* the best person for the job and not a "diversity hire"?
Return to “Land of Off Topic Posts”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests