Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
I am not saying this to be difficult, but how again is discriminating against white men rectifying past discrimination?
By this logic, white people in America ought to be enslaved for a couple of hundred years to "even things out", but I seriously doubt you would support such a measure.
Based on what else you wrote in the thread, I would think you would support a colorblind process where sex and race are complete non-issues in the hiring process.
|
What I said was:
Quote:
In my mind, AA is doing its best work when this sort of situation occurs. When a white person and a minority ( a person of colour, a woman, etc.) are up for the same position and are, for all intents and purposes, equally qualified for the position.
Historically, the white guy is the one who gets the job. AA seeks to rectify this and hopefully, create a different norm. Is it succeeding, depends on your definition of success.
|
I do prefer a colour blind process. If hiring committees were blind to colour (gender, disabilities, etc.) I wouldn't have a problem.
The issue is that, by and large, when people with equal stats apply for the same job, the vast majority of times it turns out that the white guy gets the job. This isn't because he is the
most qualified. It just happens.
I've done a lot of hiring in the past and I have found that it is rare that any one candidate's qualifications stand out over the rest. It is usually other factors that result in the hiring. I usually went on a gut feeling in the end rather than solely what was on the resume.
I think AA, in the case I am describing above, provides a nudge to those who would hire the white guy because it's in their comfort zone (whether they are aware of this comfort zone or not).
I hope that's clearer than mud...
